1951-11-15

POST OFFICE


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a copy of the New Liberty magazine for October, 1951. On page 69 I notice that the Canada Post Office has a large advertisement over the name of the Hon. G. E. Rinfret, K.C., M.P., which is captioned "Building Canada by Making Her Smaller".
The objection I take to this advertisement is that the cradle of confederation, Prince Edward Island, has been left off the map of Canada. Even if the Post Office Department does not recognize Prince Edward Island as a separate postal district, as it should under the agreement of 1873, the Post Office Department has no right to get rid of Prince Edward Island by leaving it off the map. I hope that the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) will correct this and not allow any more of these advertisements to be published.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Yesterday the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) asked me the following questions:
Are the employees of the national employment service in Ontario protected by the Ontario Fair Employment Practices Act, as are other employees in that province? If not, will the minister explain why not?
The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is that the employees of the national employment service are federal civil servants employed through the Civil Service Commission of Canada in the manner provided by law. Provincial legislation of this nature is not applicable to them.



RAILWAY LEGISLATION


Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Whiteside be substituted for that of Mr. Stewart (Yorkton) on the special committee on railway legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: I ask
leave, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the critical unemployment situation in the industrial areas of Ontario, particularly in Toronto and district, now authentically reported to be worse than it was even before the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. If Your Honour will permit me to debate that question, I may say that I have the figures to substantiate my claim.


Mr. Sinnott:: Has that anything to do with the Ontario election?


Mr. Fraser:: That is entirely a federal matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) moves, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. Under this standing order it is provided:
The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
The hon. member has done that. The motion must be made after the ordinary daily routine of business has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon. Accordingly, the motion has been made at the correct time. The rule goes on to say:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out . . .

Labour Conditions
And so on. It is my duty to determine whether or not this matter is of urgent public importance in accordance with the rules of this house. May I say that according to Beauchesne, third edition, paragraph 174:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate," when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
It is also provided in Beauchesne, in paragraph 173, that the matter raised must not be one that has already been discussed during the current session. It seems to me that this matter has been discussed from time to time this session during the debate on the speech from the throne. That may or may not be correct, but it occurs to me that it has already been discussed.
It is also provided in Beauchesne, in paragraph 176, that the matter must be of recent occurrence. This unemployment situation, according to the motion, has apparently been in existence for some time but is now authentically reported to be worse than it was even before the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. The recent occurrence would be with regard to the fact that it is authentically reported to be worse. My difficulty, however, in allowing the motion would be because the debate on the speech from the throne is still in progress; it will be resumed on Monday of the coming week and, if it is not concluded then, it will continue on Wednesday. I would remind the house that at the present time there are two amendments before the house. It is true that a number of members have spoken on one of the amendments hut on the other amendment I believe only one or two members have spoken. It therefore occurs to me that there will be opportunities in the near future for the hon. member and others to discuss the question stated in this motion. I feel sure that it would not be in accordance with the rules of the house for me to put the motion at this time.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to consolidate and revise the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act and the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, and certain other acts; to provide for the organization and functions of the treasury board1 and the Department of

Finance, and the appointment and functions of the comptroller of the treasury; to regulate the collection, management and disbursement of public money, public borrowing, the management of the public debt, and the acquisition, recording and issue of public stores; to provide for the keeping of adequate public accounts, the audit thereof, and the appointment, salary and functions of the Auditor General of Canada; to provide for the control of the financial affairs of crown corporations; to regulate the terms and conditions upon which contracts may be made on behalf of His Majesty; to provide a procedure for the write-off of debts owing to His Majesty that have become uncollectible; and to provide for the management of the consolidated revenue fund and for the making of certain payments therefrom.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Hugues Lapoinle (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases in the rates of pension for disability and for death under the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce-there are really three questions-arising out of the wheat marketing situation on the prairies. The first is this. Is the minister in a position to give a report on the wheat marketing situation and, in particular, whether in those areas where the elevators have been plugged something has been done to provide the necessary cars?
The second question arises from correspondence from various municipalities asking for consideration of this matter. In view of the tens of millions of bushels of damp and tough grades of wheat that are lying on the ground today and are in danger of complete destruction unless marketed, will the minister consider giving a preference for the time

being for wheat of those grades, so that the loss will not fall as heavily as otherwise on the farmer?
The third question is this. In many of these areas the elevators are plugged. In those areas will the minister consider giving the farmers an opportunity to load their wheat on cars on the loading platform instead of the wheat having to go through the elevators, which is now the rule generally adopted on the prairies? I ask these questions in order to clarify the situation for many western farmers and rural municipalities that are asking for information.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the first question refers to localities where all the elevators are plugged with wheat. I may say that that situation is being relieved rapidly. Car loadings from country elevators are now running at their peak of the season and we are able to make the loading more selective. In the past the difficulty has been that we have not been able to move forward low grade wheat. At the moment we are able to move a reasonable quantity of that wheat. Sales of low grade wheat have been substantial in recent weeks and we find that we need more low grade wheat at Fort William for movement east. That situation will be relieved shortly, I believe. While there are a good many individual elevators plugged, there are not so many elevator points that are plugged. There is a distinction. The pool elevators handle a greater proportion of the grain at most points than do private elevators, and it is not possible in all cases to keep individual elevators clear. We are doing our best to permit all elevators to handle the wheat that is offered. I think that before long we will have all points relieved so that wheat that has been threshed and coarse grains that are deliverable can be delivered.
My hon. friend referred to damp wheat. We have not yet been able to move forward damp wheat. My hon. friend knows that it cannot be stored in country elevators with safety, but we hope within a matter of two or perhaps three weeks the wheat board will be able to give a complete preference to damp wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: And tough.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And tough, which will be
loaded into cars and sent to the lakehead for drying. That will be the next objective of the wheat board.
My hon. friend will see why damp wheat cannot be handled when the rush is on, because many of these cars require special bins at the lakehead; but we do expect to be
Inquiries of the Ministry able to give a complete preference to damp and tough grain, particularly damp, within the next two or three weeks. As far as grain over loading platforms is concerned, I think any producer can deliver over a loading platform if he can get the cars. To my mind that is not a solution. We hope to be able to make it possible to load through the elevators, which is the best way for the producer and all concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: But where elevators are filled in a marketing point, would consideration be given there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it would be more efficient to use the car supply to unplug the elevators than to use the car supply to load over platforms. My hon. friend knows that loading over platforms is a slow process. I think we can achieve the same objective more quickly by supplying cars through the country elevators at the loading point.



INQUIRY AS TO ADVANCE PAYMENT ON FARM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I have two
questions along the same line that I should like to direct to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My first question is based on the latest report from the Western Producer of an increased number of congested pool elevators. My question is: Has a final decision been made on the request for a 75 per cent advance payment on farm stored grain? My second question is: Will the government grant the request of the United Grain Growers and other farm organizations that an interim payment on deliveries of the 1951 crop of wheat, oats and barley be made at an early date?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The problem of western
Canada is not the problem of farm stored grain particularly. We hope shortly to have elevator points relieved. If country elevators are not relieved now they will be relieved shortly so that farm stored grain can be delivered. That of course is the desirable arrangement as far as the government is concerned, and I think as far as the producer is concerned.
I have stated before that the government is actively considering the problem of wheat, oats and barley that are still in the fields. Representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Canadian wheat board are in western Canada at the present time exploring the situation with the wheat pools and with elevator companies, and I hope very shortly to be able to announce a method of financing wheat that could not

Inquiries of the Ministry be harvested. That is the problem, I believe, rather than the problem of farm stored grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am afraid the minister did
not answer my second question. Will the government consider an interim payment on the 1951 crop at an early date? Then I have a further supplementary question. Do I take it from the minister's answer to my first question that the government has decided not to make an advance payment on farm stored grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to the second question first, I made no such statement. I said that question was being studied with a view to making arrangements to finance grain that could not be harvested. I said nothing more, and I hope my hon. friend will read nothing more into that statement.
The answer to the second question is, an interim payment on wheat of the 1951 crop will be made at the usual time, which is usually about February 1.


Mr. Wright:: May I follow that up with
just another question? Sometime ago the minister said that early in November he would hope to be able to make an announcement with regard to the final payment on the 1950 wheat pool.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I still hope to make that statement shortly. The difficulty is that the wheat crop of last year involved about 350 separate grades. The accounting problem of putting a price on all those grades has proved enormous. The staff have worked night and day. I have not received the final results, but as soon as I do I will announce it in the house.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister's attention been called to the fact that certain municipalities are recovering from pensions granted to aged citizens of this country certain relief payments that had been made to those citizens prior to the time that they were granted old age pensions?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend was kind enough to give me notice of his question, and in reply I would say first of all I am not aware of any such contemplated action. I am also not sure as to whether my hon. friend is speaking of payments made under the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, or the Old Age Pensions Act; but in any


event, I should like to make it clear that all of these acts contain a clause which provides that no pension payment can be attached, assigned or seized in satisfaction of any claim against a recipient. This is provided directly in the Old Age Security Act and in the Old Age Pensions Act, and it is provided indirectly in the Old Age Assistance Act through the requirement contained in the federal act that the provinces must give an undertaking to include such a provision in their provincial legislation.



INQUIRY AS TO PROHIBITION OF EXPORT OF CANADIAN FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. The question is similar to the question I asked on January 31, 1951. Owing to the reports that communists are continuing to blackmail Canadians of Chinese descent who have friends and relatives in China, in order to protect these Canadians has the government given consideration to prohibiting the export of Canadian dollars and other funds to communist China and to countries behind the iron curtain?


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: I will take that as a notice.



INQUIRY AS TO NUMBER OF CANADIANS TAKEN AS PRISONERS OF WAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. During the Korean campaign have any Canadians been taken as prisoners of war?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: I have not had notice of this question, but speaking from recollection I do not think any have been captured. If any have been captured, it is I think only one, but I will have to verify that.


Gordon Graydon: The reason I asked the question is the controversy now raging with respect to the treatment of soldiers of the United Nations generally who have been taken as prisoners of war.


Brooke Claxton: I have a return on my desk, and I will look it up and let my hon. friend know later in the afternoon.



ARMOURIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Are pistol and revolver clubs allowed to use the rifle ranges in armouries, or has notice gone out to the effect that they cannot use them any more? Police officers and other men have been using them in the past, but I understand a notice has gone out that they cannot use them any longer?


Brooke Claxton: I will have to look into that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I brought up the question, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that it would be to the advantage-	[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It would help in civil defence.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: These men should be allowed to use the armouries.



UNION DUES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue?


Mr. Stick:: Don't make a speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, and it will be just one question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister have his department consider the possibility of sending out a supplement to the department's information bulletin No. 5 regarding the deduction of union dues for income tax purposes so as to make it clear that in the case of unions whose superannuation funds have already been approved payments made to such funds can still be deducted, as well as regular dues for the work of the union? As the minister knows, bulletin No. 5, dated October 26, 1951, a copy of which he has sent me-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Ask your question and sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. This bulletin sets out the form of receipt that trade unions can use. But it is confusing some trade unions on the matter of pension fund payments that are already authorized as deductible.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I will see to it that officials of the department give consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if that information is not already contained in bulletin No. 5.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister. I am afraid it is not, so I will come over and talk with him about it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister care to revise the statement he made to the house on October 29 concerning auxiliary services in Korea, in view of the evidence in the Globe and Mail-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: It is always right.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -showing a reproduction of an advertisement of the Salvation Army that appears in the British Weekly, indicating-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -that the Salvation Army is supplying auxiliary services to British troops in Korea?


Brooke Claxton: The information I gave the house on that occasion was based upon information received from officers of the department, and I verified it carefully with them. It was based upon reports received from officers who, themselves, had been in Korea. Since the article to which my hon. friend has referred appeared in this morning's issue of the Globe and Mail, I have asked them to check up with the British authorities, and to learn directly from them what the situation is.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), which was prompted by a question which his colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had asked concerning the application of rule 9 to pensioners of the Canadian

Inquiries of the Ministry National Railways. My answer, in effect, was that the interpretation of rule 9 would not affect those in receipt of old age pension after January 1 of next year.
The supplementary question was as to whether the same answer could be given with respect to gratuities of the Canadian National Railways. I am now informed that gratuitous allowances are granted, under conditions, to employees who do not qualify for pension under the rules. These allowances are subjected to a means test, and the eligibility to receive an old age pension at seventy has been one reason to discontinue such allowances at that age. The number of gratuitants whose allowances have been discontinued for this reason is very small, namely seventeen, including two this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Is there in prospect any fundamental change in Canadian National Railways pensions, to be announced before the end of this year or, in other words, before the new old age pension plans come into effect?


Lionel Chevrier: I can only reply to that, as has already been stated in the house, that Canadian National Railways pension rules are now under reconsideration, and my understanding is that the brotherhoods and the railways are discussing changes to the pension rules. I have not been advised what they are; but when I am, I should be in a position to give information to the house.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us now when the return passed as an order for return on April 30, regarding legal fees, will be brought down? The Prime Minister said he would have the matter looked into.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I did have it looked into, and there are still two or three matters about which further information is required. I hope, however, that it will not take more than a day or two to get that further information.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Labour? Has his attention been called

to the fact that unemployment in Toronto is now building up at a rate of over two thousand a week? If so, what steps is the government taking to relieve that situation?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, our attention of course has been drawn to the fact of unemployment, and of employment, throughout Canada. I can report to the house that while there are small pockets of unemployed, particularly in central Ontario, on the whole the employment picture in Canada is exceptionally good at the present time.



CANADIAN FORCES ACT TO PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION, PENSIONS, ETC., TO MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES AND ALLIED SERVICES

Brooke Claxton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Defence Act to provide for the payment of compensation in respect of the death or disability of persons employed in or with the public service of Canada while performing functions in relation to the Canadian forces, the defence research board or forces co-operating therewith; to amend the Defence Services Pension Act to permit the payment of a pension to an officer or man who has served in the Canadian forces for twenty years or more and to provide that the act shall continue to apply to a man who, having been promoted from the ranks, is granted a short service commission; to provide that persons who have accumulated pensionable service under the Defence Services Pension Act may be able to count that service under the Civil Service Superannuation Act when they retire from the forces to accept civil service appointments in the Department of National Defence; to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act to provide continuing authority for that department to administer, on the same basis as in the past, the service estates of former members of the forces; to amend the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act to provide for the attendance of civilian witnesses at American courts-martial held in Canada; and to amend other statutes to make their terminology consistent with that of the National Defence Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Brooke Claxton: I could explain it in committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will recall that at the first session of parliament in 1950 we enacted the National Defence Act. That act contained a comprehensive revision of all legislation related to defence, and also incorporated in one measure a single disciplinary code for the navy, the army and the air force.
Subsequently the various sections of that act have all been brought into force by proclamation, and the regulations of the three

services were brought into effect on September 1, 1951. So that all the defence legislation that was planned four years ago has now been put into effect. Now there are a number of amendments to be made to other statutes consequential upon the amendments made to the National Defence Act.
For example a definition of the word "military" was given in the National Defence Act, and it is now considered desirable that that same definition be used in all other legislation. Altogether there are twenty-nine clauses in the bill which will be introduced. Of those clauses, some eighteen are purely textual changes. They are verbal, and are not even of a technical nature. Then, eleven clauses have to do with amendments of a textual nature, but of some substance.
Perhaps it will be of some assistance to hon. members in considering the bill which will be distributed immediately this resolution is adopted if I refer to the sections which make specific amendments and indicate briefly the nature of those amendments.
Section 5, subsection 2, would enable persons who served overseas with the Royal Canadian Navy during the second world war other than at sea to count such service for the purposes of the Civil Service Superannuation Act. It would thus give personnel who saw such service with the navy the same rights as have been given to personnel who served in the army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Section 6 would enable the governor in council to provide that persons who have accumulated pensionable service under the Defence Services Pension Act to count that service under the Civil Service Superannuation Act when they retire from the forces to accept civil service appointments in the Department of National Defence. A man who retires from the services to take a civil service position with the department may count his service for pension purposes.


Mr. Adamson:: But only with the department?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. Section 8, subsection 2, would protect the pension rights of men appointed to short service commissions. This is now covered by order in council P. C. 2932, dated June 7, 1951. It is estimated that this would relate to three men in the navy, 171 in the army, 201 in the air force or a total of 375. It is only just that men who accept commissions on a short term basis and are promoted from the ranks should not lose their pensionable rights.
Section 8, subsection 6, will enable the governor in council to grant a pension to a contributor who has been a member of the military services for twenty years, who served
Canadian Forces Act
on active service during the second world war and subsequently in the regular forces but who has, at the date of his retirement, served for less than ten years in the regular forces. In other words, from the point of view of qualification for pension, service with the active forces during the war would be taken together with service with the regular forces since the war in order to make up the minimum period of ten years. It is estimated that 334 officers and men would be covered by this at the present time, but that number will be progressively reduced as these men complete ten years' service.
Section 14, subsection 2, would change the word "military" to "army" and would also delete reference to Newfoundland and the Irish Free State in a section of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act. The Irish Free State, formerly designated as the Republic of Ireland, ceased to be a member of the commonwealth in April, 1949, and Newfoundland became incorporated with Canada by the act of union of that year. Clause 14, subsections 4 and 5, similarly delete reference to Newfoundland and the Irish Free State.
Section 17, subsection 2, would amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Act in order to continue the authority of that department to administer the service estate of former members of the forces who die while in DVA hospitals. That was provided for in the previous national defence legislation, but it was not carried into the National Defence Act.
Section 22, subsection 2, would provide for the attendance of civilian witnesses before United States courts-martial held in Canada. That is a privilege which we enjoy now with the United States and we want to put it on a reciprocal basis. Even in these cases the attendance of witnesses would require an order issued by a Canadian civilian magistrate.
Section 25 provides for the appointment by the governor in council of an officer as chairman of the chiefs of staff committee. This is now provided by order in council. It also gives the governor in council authority to make provision for compensation to civilians employed in the public service of Canada or doing research or consultative work in relation to the Canadian forces and the defence research board where disability or death is suffered in connection with their service. In applying this section it is expected that the governor in council will order that the Pension Act be made applicable in these cases. Cases might occur where a civilian worker engaged on research in connection with a dangerous weapon is killed or injured along with service personnel. At the present time a pension would be paid to the member

Canadian Forces Act
of the service, but not to the civilian. We think it is only just that the same provision should extend to the civilian.
Section 26 relates to offences committed or commenced, but not disposed of, prior to the coming into force of the disciplinary parts of the National Defence Act on September 1, 1951. This point is now covered by order in council, P.C. 3417, dated July 4, 1951.
Section 28 would extend the operation of section 4 of the Official Secrets Act to cover persons who by reason of service with but not in the forces may have obtained information that should not be disclosed.
As I said, these changes are almost entirely of a technical nature or consequential upon the enactment of the National Defence Act and our experience with the operation of that act during the past year. I commend them to the consideration of the committee.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, apparently the proposed bill is to include quite a few amendments to the National Defence Act. I suggest to the minister that he give consideration to an amendment having to do with the welfare and educational services. We now have troops in Korea and Europe and I believe that this question has become one of the most important to be dealt with by this parliament
I was somewhat disturbed to hear over the radio last night and to read in the Citizen this morning a dispatch from Edmonton reporting an interview with the Primate of the Anglican Church, the Most Rev. Archbishop W. F. Barfoot, who has just returned from visiting the troops in Korea. The primate reported that he had visited every unit in Korea and had found the morale of the troops excellent, which we would expect. He also said that they were well clothed, well led and well fed. But he made this disturbing statement:
Not everything had been done that could be in the way of education and recreational facilities for front-line troops. Plans were projected but not yet in operation because the brigade could not spare many men from military duties.
That statement confirms what we have been hearing from the men themselves. For example, they say that there has been very little provision made for entertainment. Apparently what entertainment there is is of United States origin. No Canadians have been sent out to provide entertainment, although I understand offers have been made by Canadian groups.
We also hear that, while radio broadcasts are provided, the troops do not have sufficient radios available to listen. I believe that the United States forces have at least one radio for every company. There may or may not be a similar provision for Canadian troops but my information is that there is no such

provision. We are also told that the troops cannot get Canadian cigarettes, that they cannot get pipes and that there is a shortage of reading material in Korea. Evidently because of the damp climate and the long wet periods paper books and other reading material do not last long, and therefore a larger supply is needed than would be the case in other climates. Apparently educational services are not very extensive.
I appreciate the great difficulties there must be in making provision for welfare and educational services. I do not suppose there has ever been a battle area where it has been more difficult to make adequate provision, but it does seem that some better method could be adopted. I understand that at the present time there is a staff captain welfare at brigade headquarters and a welfare officer with each of the units but that the duties of the welfare officer are not restricted to welfare services. He may be put on messing or other duties; it is not his sole job to look after welfare services for the unit.
My information may or may not be correct. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of all the details but the statement made by the primate shows that something must be done to bring about a better situation. I know that the minister is just as anxious as I am to have the best possible welfare services provided for the troops. I suggest to him that he have the situation investigated right away either by people in the government service who are not now in the Department of National Defence or perhaps by representatives of the national organizations which did such splendid work in providing welfare services for the Canadian forces during the second world war. I refer of course to the Canadian Legion, the Y.M.C.A., the Knights of Columbus and the Salvation Army.
It should be possible to get experts also from one or more of these organizations who could be flown to Korea to help make a survey of the situation and then make recommendations to the government. From my own experience in the first world war I think it is of great value to have these national organizations with the forces. They bring a home touch which cannot possibly be brought by welfare men in the fighting forces. There is a great deal of value in having the contact provided by the representatives of these national organizations.
For the time being I merely urge the minister to have an independent investigation of the whole situation made without delay. If our fighting forces are getting the best welfare and educational services that can be provided we should know about it. Their loved ones should know about it and the

Canadian people generally should know. If they are not getting the best that can be provided then I think that fact should also be made known and we should all be given an opportunity to suggest remedies.
Our young men have been called on in such a short time after the last world war to go out and make sacrifices again, and I know that every single member of this house would insist just as much as I do that these young Canadians be given the best services that can be obtained. It certainly looks as if they are not getting that type at the present time.


Mr. Gillis:: Unfortunately some of us are members of a very important committee that is to meet at 3.30. Otherwise I think this resolution should get a thorough going over before the bill is introduced. The amendments it is proposed to introduce by way of legislation, as envisaged by the resolution, certainly fall short of what I think is required. With reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra as to entertainment and welfare services in Korea, I should like to say that I received a letter directly from Korea last May from a person who has been there since the first troops were landed. He is one in whom I have supreme confidence that he is not only there to serve his country well-he did that in the last war-but is completely reliable and reasonable in anything he might expect by way of comforts or pleasure.
His letter indicated that, so far as recreation was concerned, they were charitable patients depending on the Americans and the British. He did not make any particular request as to what should be done but he thought something should be established similar to what we had in the last war, for example, the Legion war services. I wrote the department on this matter and received an answer from the minister that he was taking it up with the proper officials, and he did so. I received a letter from one of the officials who apparently have to do with this matter, and it sounded almost resentful that anyone should suggest that everything was not being done that should be done. It definitely stated that everything was all right. It was quite a lengthy document.
Since that time I have met boys who have come back from Korea and they confirm the fact that recreational facilities leave much to be desired. I am not going to make any recommendations as to what the minister should do about it. That is his job. I think the least that should be done is to place our boys in the position that when they come out of the line they will not have to go to the
Canadian Forces Act
Americans or the British as charitable patients. They should have their own place to go to and the right to go into a Canadian canteen. Most members of the house know what it is like to walk into the other fellow's canteen when there is a shortage of beer or cigarettes. They do not want to see you there when there is little enough for themselves. I want to support the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in his statement that there is a necessity for the minister to check up on welfare facilities available to our men in Korea.
I notice the minister is proposing amendments to the act in regard to superannuation of members of the permanent force and related services. Well, that is all to the good. I hope that those drafting the legislation will recall something I have said several times during the past year concerning the way in which the act is now applied to members of the permanent force. They may pay into that fund for 10 or 15 years, then incur some disability that is not related to military service as such and pass away while in the service. What happens then? The dependents receive what the man paid in plus a little interest, but minus the income tax.
Several times I have put a case on the records in which a captain in the service incurred a heart condition, and despite the fact that he was in the war the Department of Veterans Affairs stated that his death was not attributable in any way to his war service. I still claim it was largely caused by the stress and strain of the war, but the medical experts in the department do not agree. His widow received the money he had paid into the superannuation fund, minus $650 which the income tax department took. When you are redrafting this act for service personnel, I think some safeguard should be put in there. This woman has not been able to establish a claim to a dependent's pension, because she is not old enough. She has not been able to get any help under war veterans allowance, despite the fact that she lives 20 miles away from any place where she can obtain employment and is tied down by two children. I feel that that is a very poor return to a person who had given so much to the service. I feel that particular thing should be taken care of when you are redrafting this act.
Yesterday I said, and I am going to repeat it for the benefit of the minister, that the dependents allowance requires overhauling. The maximum appears to be $126 a month. I am badly affected because there have been a lot of enlistments in my part of the country. A married man goes into the service and leaves his wife and three or four children to live in a home he is building upon which

Canadian Forces Act
there is a mortgage. After he is in the service the wife finds that this $126 does not replace her husband's earnings. She is not able to meet the mortgage payments and maintain the children. Then there is a controversy started by mail in an endeavour to get him out of the service. In some cases he is let out, but in most cases he is not. When a man is let out we have wasted the money in outfitting and training him and transporting h'm across the country. Some revision is necessary. If married men are accepted, then the wife should be enabled to maintain the same standard for her family as the husband provided before he enlisted.
There is another angle to this question of married men in the service. By joining the army today many married men can get completely clear of their responsibilities to their families. I have brought to the attention of the department cases in which married men have joined the army. A couple of months later the wife finds she is getting no allowance at all. The man has to make an assignment and he will not do so, so the wife is left at the mercy of the municipality. I have ironed this out so far as I could with the department. I asked the department to parade that man and ascertain whether or not he should be supporting his family. The department takes the view that they have no authority to do that. They say that you must get a court order. If this woman is living on Cape Breton Island or in Vancouver, she has to go to a magistrate and make application under a certain section of the Criminal Code in order to get a court order. The wife must produce her husband in court, and if he happens to be up in Camp Borden it means that the municipality has to send police officers up there to get him. The municipality is not going to do that, and the defence department take the position they have no responsibility in the matter. In the meantime, the man is in the service and his family is on the outside starving. That is not an ideal situation, and I think the department should do something about it. If married men are to be taken in, then their families should be properly looked after. Otherwise, married men should not be taken into the service. I do not see how we can justify enabling a man to get clear of his responsibility to his family by going into the service. I believe those two points should be corrected.
I have said two or three times, but I am going to repeat it, that it is not fair that a clothing allowance is not granted to men who are leaving the service after having served In Korea. After the last war a man received 30 days' pay, and 30 days to look around and find out what he was going to do. Upon going into the service most men have a suit,

perhaps two. During the period in service the suit is either moth-eaten or out of date. He is given a uniform to go out in, but he is not going to wear that around very long before he becomes conspicuous in the neighbourhood. I do not think it is asking too much to provide at least a clothing allowance and 30 days' pay to the man who has seen combat service. If we are going to start revising many of these acts, I think those points should be remembered.
I strongly urge the minister to take a look at the superannuation arrangements that are in effect now. Apparently they are to be changed. He should consider also the position of a man serving 10 or 15 years in the service, who has seen combat service, and who dies while in service but whose death the medical officers will not attribute to service, because he has not a big hole shot in him. In the case I mentioned earlier the man had two or three years of combat service; he went through Italy and central Europe, and upon coming back to Canada stayed in the service.
I do not think that any medical people could make a dogmatic assertion that in large part that man's death at that age was not due to military service. In that case the benefit of the doubt was not given to the man or his wife and two children. I have talked about this case so much that it has become a phobia with me. I am going to continue to talk about it until somebody does something about it. I appreciate the minister's position. He has the army, the navy and the air force on his hands at the present time. I know that his personnel department are working hard devising new regulations and all that kind of thing. It may just not seem to be particularly important to consider a case like that when you have a billion dollars' worth of equipment to work on. But do not forget that equipment is no good without men; and unless you are going to get men with contented minds, with the assurance that they and their dependents are going to be taken care of, all of our equipment and all of our money is no good.
There are many other things I should like to say.


Mr. Wylie:: Say them.


Clarence Gillis: No, I must go to a committee and look after maritime freight rates. I am going to leave these few thoughts with the minister. I hope that I will never again have to say anything about these matters and that they will all be taken care of.


Mr. Fulion:: I have just two comments that I should like to make on points of substance and one on a matter of form with respect to the legislation. On the matters of substance, it is perhaps not necessary to enlarge-

certainly not to any great extent-on what has been said by the hon. member for Van-eouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Cape Breton South; but I want to back up fully what they have said as to the necessity for providing auxiliary services, as they were known during the last war, for the forces in Korea.
The picture appears to be confused, and under the circumstances I think we should not make any exaggerated statements until the minister has had a chance to make the further investigation which I understand he has now instituted as a result of reports of what is available to other forces. But I would urge upon the minister and the department that even if his investigation should show that other forces do not have auxiliary services, we should not take that as a compelling reason why we ourselves should not provide them, particularly as the Canadian organizations which provided those services in the past have indicated not only a willingness but an anxiety to do so at present. While it may be difficult to provide them in Korea on the same scale as was done in the United Kingdom, northwest Europe and Italy, nevertheless if they are willing to provide them at all it certainly seems to me that we should not discourage them and that we should not simply content ourselves by saying: No other country which has forces there does it either. I think it is a matter in which we might well set the pattern.
Then I want to bring to the minister's attention another matter which I think is of importance in connection with this question of morale. I had it brought to my attention shortly before coming down here to Ottawa, as a result of a conversation I had. This came fairly well direct; there was one secondary stage in between, but that is all. Some of the men coming back here from Korea find that the reception they are given is, to say the least, disappointing. This reaction came from a man who came back to Canada via the United States. On landing at the United States port he observed the exceedingly enthusiastic official welcome which had been staged by the United States authorities. Not only had the civil auxiliary organizations arranged a sort of turnout to make the men realize that they were welcome back and that their country was proud of them, but there was the matter of the whole official reception which they received from their own service. The same sort of rehabilitation advice and counsel which our men received after the last war was available in full measure to the United States troops when they returned from Korea. Then this man, coming from the United States up to Vancouver-which
Canadian Forces Act
was his official return to Canada-was greatly struck and terribly disappointed by the contrast between the atmosphere in which he was received in Canada and that in which the United States troops had been received in the United States.
It may be that perhaps some of these things can be rather overdone, but it is difficult to overdo the reception which should be accorded to our troops coming back from Korea. I doubt if the most elaborate official reception could be overdone in terms of what they merit. I think that we should certainly make sure that the military as well as the civilian reception, and the attitude shown to our men on their return form Korea, lacks nothing and does not in any way suggest to them that possibly their service and their sacrifice is not appreciated. I am not suggesting-and I would not do so for a moment-that it is actually indicative of the fact that it is not appreciated; but in these matters it seems to me that it is exceedingly important to be meticulous not to allow the impression to creep in that possibly the service is not appreciated.
Then with respect to the question of form, I should like to ask the minister to consider this suggestion. If it is too late to incorporate it into this bill, I should like to ask him to do so in connection with any future legislation of the same type. As I understood what the minister said, the bill will consist of twenty-eight sections amending a large number of the other acts.


Brooke Claxton: Twenty-nine.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not sure whether I heard him aright; did he say sixteen other acts?


Brooke Claxton: I did not say.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Anyway, it was a large number. As I understand it, it is all to be in the one bill. It will be one bill amending quite a number of other statutes. It seems to me that procedure certainly may make for inconvenience, if not worse, in the future, when someone is trying to find what statutes have been amended and what ones have not. Of the statutes which are to be amended, one is the Pension Act; another is the Visiting Forces (U.S.A.) Act; and the Department of Veterans Affairs Act is also to be amended. It seems to me that if all these amendments are consolidated in one statute it will be inconvenient, to say the least, for a person wishing to study the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. Looking through the index of statutes to find out the titles of amending acts, you would not normally expect to find an amendment to the Department of Veterans Affairs Act under the National Defence Act, or to the

Canadian Forces Act
Official Secrets Act or any of the other acts that have been named as being amended, except the National Defence Act itself.
I therefore suggest that, when this type of legislation is introduced, it should be introduced as separate bills. Each amendment to each of the other statutes should be introduced as a separate bill standing on its own. After all, we do that in connection with the budget every year. We do not introduce one act amending the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Customs Act. Three separate bills are introduced, although they all stem from the one set of budget resolutions. In the same way here, I think it would be much more convenient, when more than one statute is to be amended, if the bills amending the statutes were themselves introduced separately or if the clauses amending the statutes were introduced separately as separate bills. I do not think it would make for any substantial increase in the amount of time consumed, any more than it does on the budget; because the main debate would take place on the resolution. At the present time, if there were any objection to the points which are involved in the amendments, the time will be consumed now on the clauses of the bill.
So that it would not, as I see it, make for any increase in time beyond the merely formal procedure necessary to be gone through which, after all, does not take a great deal of time anyway. I mean when the motion to leave the chair is put, and for the sake of convenience and clarity in dealing with statute law-I readily admit it is too late to do it this time-I would urge him in the future, when what I might call omnibus amendments are being introduced, to consider introducing the amendments in substance separately.
(Translation):


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to tell the Hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) that I was surprised and astonished by the statements he made following my remarks of Monday last.
I was surprised by the manner in which these statements were made and by the terms the minister used. Of course I did not expect him to say that I was right but, to say the least, it was rude and unparliamentary to claim there was not an ounce of truth in my charges. However, I did not attach to the words of the minister as much importance as he did. It would be much better for him and for us if he were to take to task the French-baiting officers of his department, whom I will denounce just as long as they persecute the French Canadians.

My duty in this house is to defend and protect my fellow countrymen and I will unfailingly fulfil this duty, whether the government likes it or not.
In order to do so, I do not need the approval of any minister or the assent of the whip of my party. All the statements I made in this house, since I have the honour of being one of its members, were true to the best of my knowledge and they have not been contradicted.
They may have been denied, as in this case, but those denials did not prove anything.
I said that I was surprised at the statement made by the minister. In fact I was surprised at how quickly it was made. At nine-thirty in the evening I disclosed that special consideration was shown to the French Canadians in Korea in that they were assigned to the most exposed battle positions and given the most tedious tasks and at three o'clock the very next afternoon the minister cried out that it was all false.
I am anxious to know what kind of inquiry the minister had made. He certainly did not have time to go to Korea to check my contentions on the spot. How, then, did he make sure I was entirely wrong? Did he phone, wire or communicate personally or through other people with the commanding officers of our units in Korea? Which officers did he consult? Did those officers tell him the whole truth? Or, as it may well be, was he convinced beforehand that I was wrong?
Can he assure me that he has never received complaints, either directly or indirectly, from French-Canadian soldiers about the way they were being treated in Korea? Can he assure me that his officers have received no such complaints? Can the members themselves swear that they have never been informed of such complaints?
How is it that the minister was so anxious to give me an answer on Tuesday last, and yet he will not do anything about the investigation I have been asking for months on the unwarranted dismissal of Flying Officer Desrochers? Have I not submitted to him all the evidence necessary for such an investigation? Why be so anxious on the one hand and so indifferent on the other?
When the minister answers my questions I shall tell him something else. In the meantime, the minister and others should not expect me to reveal my sources of information.

I have reasons to believe that the information supplied to me is in accord with the facts. I will not disclose to the house the names of those who have entrusted me with the information, as it would put them in a difficult situation.
Only those who close their eyes to the evidence contend that French Canadians are treated fairly in the armed services on the battlefield as well as in training camps. I am not of that opinion.
That is what I wanted to say today to the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of attention to the statement just made by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon).
If French-Canadian soldiers in Korea are being discriminated against, if they are the object of a special affection, in the sense that they are placed in the most dangerous spots, I will be the first to protest, to urge the Hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the whole house to demand that this state of affairs be brought to an end.
I read the newspapers after the hon. member had made his statement. Commanding officer Dextraze is reported to have said that not a word of it was true.
I do not know what the Chicoutimi member's sources of information are; they may be excellent. I have not the slightest doubt that he is sincere, but just the same, when he makes charges as important and as serious as those he brought to the attention of this house the other day, from his seat in parliament, as a man responsible not only to the people of Chicoutimi county but to all Canadians, it is important that all hon. members should get further information. We do not ask him to divulge the names of those who gave him this information, but simply to state his charges more precisely, so that we may know if, in fact, certain commanders place French-Canadian soldiers in more exposed positions than others. Personally I cannot see how that can be possible, since there are French-speaking commanding officers in Korea.
The minister made a statement after our hon. friend had stated his allegations, and said that the charges were unfounded. After all I should think these men who command a company or a regiment must be somewhat responsible and sincere.
That is what I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker. I do not in the least wish to blame my hon. friend. The only thing I could blame him for would be that he has not been more definite.
Canadian Forces Act
I would be very much surprised, though, if the situation that he spoke of really existed.
After all the efforts made by Frenchspeaking Canadians in the past in order to strengthen the bonds of fraternity in Canada among Canadians of English, French, Ukrainian, Polish, Italian or any other origin, 1 do not see why English-speaking Canadians would not do the same. I am sure that if such were the case, we would not have to deplore the condition mentioned by the hon. member.
May I say again that I do not doubt the statement made by the hon. member, but we must have proof that such a condition exists.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) took the floor, I thought he had meant to withdraw, unreservedly, his remarks of two weeks ago. But he did not. He repeats them and reasserts, without a scintilla of evidence, that his contentions are in accord with the facts.
We now have seven thousand men fighting communists in Korea. They are seven thousand miles away, and Korean terrain is very rugged. Because they are engaged in combat almost every day, it is essential that they have the utmost confidence in their officers and in other units fighting by their side. If differences were to arise between units, they would cause a great deal of trouble both in Korea and here in Canada.
Now what are the facts? The fact is that there is not a single word of truth in those allegations. Colonel Jimmy Dextraze, D.S.O., C.B.E., is the commanding officer of the 22nd Regiment. A man of great experience, one of the best officers in the Canadian army, he is held in high esteem by his men. When he heard of those allegations, his reply, as reported by Bill Boss, through the Canadian Press was: "It's a damn lie!" Such was the answer of the commanding officer of the 22nd Regiment in the theatre of operations.
The fact is that, through no fault of their own, but because of the hazards of war, the casualties sustained by the 22nd Regiment are much lower than those of the other infantry battalions. It is not their fault, but it is nevertheless true. We cannot hope to achieve the degree of national unity so desirable in Canada when a person, whatever be his race, raises a matter such as this without formal proof. I believe that the allegations made by the member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) have not met with the approval of

Canadian Forces Act
all French Canadians, since they have aroused1 unfavourable comments in some newspapers in the province of Quebec and other parts of the country. I do not think that his remarks have contributed anything to the cause of the French Canadians or to national unity.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would he tell me the French equivalent for "damn lie"?


Brooke Claxton: Those words are not mine.


Pierre Gauthier: It is "un mensonge ehonte".
(Text):


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to
associate myself with the remarks of the hon. members for Vancouver-Quadra, Cape Breton South and Kamloops regarding our desire to have a clear picture from the minister with respect to auxiliary services in Korea at the present time. As the minister knows only too well, being a distinguished old soldier himself, a soldier's worst enemy is not fear: it is boredom and discomfort. I think probably there never was a battleground in which that was as true as it is in Korea. During the last war when soldiers were not fighting, at least there were places to which they could go when on leave, and where they could be reasonably comfortable. Of course in Korea there are simply no places to go.
I suggest that for that reason it is most important that our troops out there have the very best auxiliary services that can be provided. They can be provided on the brigade level because I know they were during the last war. I happened to be a brigade major myself, and had a good deal to do with operating the auxiliary services. For this reason I know they worked satisfactorily at the brigade level.
Those services also did a tremendous job of raising the morale of all troops with whom they worked, by way of providing facilities for sports, as well as moving pictures, canteens and the like. I would be very much interested to hear from the minister what is being done by way of providing auxiliary services for our troops in Korea at the present time.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, reading this
resolution one realizes that his remarks under it could be almost as wide as they would be under the first item in the minister's estimates. However, I intend to speak only briefly, and in doing so I would support the remarks of the hon. members for Vancouver-Quadra, Cape Breton South and Kamloops with respect to the necessity for auxiliary
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf) .1
services and recreational facilities for our troops in Korea. I hope when the minister replies he will tell the committee exactly what is to be done to improve the conditions described.
In addition to that, I was interested to hear reference by the hon. member for Cape Breton South to the correspondence he has had with various people who are affected by the fact that their husbands have failed to assign pay. I am informed there is no regulation in effect at the present time to compel a serviceman to assign pay. I have received a few letters from wives who are seriously affected by the fact that their husbands have refused to assign pay. My information is that it is up to the wife, under the present regulations, to apply to the courts for an order. I do suggest this matter should receive careful consideration, and that the regulations should be changed so that a woman cannot be left under those circumstances, and would not be compelled to use the ordinary courts of law to get the income she requires to live on.
I am one who appreciates the good work done by members of the reserve forces. I know that in many smaller places it is a discouraging job, and is not something receiving publicity from day to day. The work of the people in the reserve forces does not receive the support it should. I have always been interested to watch how reserve force units function, and in travelling around the country I have been told, by men who have transferred from one unit to another, that there is a great difference between the administration in one reserve unit and that in another.
When the minister replies I would ask him to explain what latitude is allowed to the officer commanding. In some cases officers commanding have the right attitude, while in other cases one sees an altogether different attitude and a different spirit. However, I have found a great deal of difference in things that can be done and things that cannot be done.
Would the minister tell the committee if some reserve units have enlisted men to take part in sports, either on a baseball team, a hockey team or a basketball team, with the understanding that they are never to wear a uniform, and to attend only pay parades. In the past have men enlisted under those circumstances been injured while playing for a unit, or playing for Canada? The men about whom I am speaking might not take part in drills. Have any of them received pensions or disability benefits under the Pension Act?
These thoughts occurred to me when the hon. member for Cape Breton South was

referring to morale. It is very necessary for reserve force units to feel that they are treated on exactly the same basis across Canada, and that the same regulations apply to all.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I say a few words in support of what has been said with respect to auxiliary services in Korea, so as to impress upon the minister the importance of this particular feature of service in the field. As has been pointed out, I do not think it matters what other countries are doing or are not doing. Canada could well afford to set an example in the employment of auxiliary services even if other countries are not using this type of service. I do not think it matters about the terrain or the difficult living conditions in deciding whether auxiliary services should be supplied. In fact, I think the more difficult conditions are the greater the need for auxiliary services.
I am not suggesting that large recreational centres should be set up in a country like Korea. What I am thinking about is auxiliary services at the unit level. That is where I think the emphasis should be placed until such time as it is feasible to provide more adequate recreational services elsewhere.
I am not too sure that the present arrangement of welfare officers and N.C.O.'s is as good as auxiliary services provided by the Legion, the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army or some such organization. It has been suggested that it might work at the brigade level, but the experience has been that the welfare officer is not necessarily a specialist in that type of work. He may be dispatched to other duties and replaced by someone else, whereas the auxiliary service man is a specially selected man who has had considerable experience in Canada dealing with young men. My experience in the war was that these men in the auxiliary services were ready to undertake any type of service with a complete disregard of danger.
While the present arrangement of welfare officers and N.C.O.'s may be temporarily satisfactory, I would not want to have it a permanent arrangement. The reasons are fairly obvious to those who have seen service. There is a barrier between the man in the ranks and the officer and the N.C.O. You cannot maintain discipline in a unit and reduce that to a nonentity. On the other hand, your auxiliary service man from the Y.M.C.A., Salvation Army or some similar organization is able to work with no barrier between him and the man. He moves with freedom among the private soldiers, the N.C.O.'s and the
Canadian Forces Act
officers. We must not forget that the private soldier outnumbers all the rest by a considerable majority.
I suggest that the minister give serious consideration to utilizing these auxiliary service people in Korea in accordance with the offers that have been made already. I think good results would flow. There is no question that the morale of our men is of the greatest importance. When a man is serving in the field it takes only a small amount of auxiliary services to build up his morale. Anyone who has served in the field has seen that happen quite frequently.
There is another important aspect to this matter. If these organizations are permitted to send experienced and trained personnel overseas they will be apt to mobilize public opinion at home, which will be all to the good. At times the men in Korea must feel that they are forgotten. It is not that anybody wishes to forget them; it is a natural thing unless attention is drawn to what is going on. An organization sending auxiliary service personnel overseas would likely keep the public at home informed with regard to the welfare of the troops. I think the general public would feel happier and more at ease if our young men were being looked after by these highly trained welfare people which these organizations to which I have referred can supply.
Just a final word with regard to education. I imagine the minister will have something to say along this line. There is a field for educational services with the troops. Not with troops right in the front line, as they have not the time; but with those back in hospital or at base there is obviously a certain amount of spare time available. There are always a number of young men who wish to avail themselves of this opportunity to advance, and educational services should be provided. Perhaps they are being provided at the present time.
I suggest that every endeavour should be made to provide these services to our serving men. Many of them will be appreciative of such an opportunity and I think it should be made available to them. It must be remembered always that behind the man carrying the rifle in the front line are 7, 8 or 10 men serving elsewhere. Those men are likely to have some spare time available and could take advantage of educational services.


Mr. Jones:: I should like to make one suggestion although I do not know whether it will be acceptable. Like all hon. members, I have found great difficulty in assisting returned men, those of the first war especially, in establishing claims. In many cases records were lost and the men never had records

Canadian Forces Act
personally. Sometimes records were incorrectly kept and at no time is the private soldier permitted access to the military records in order to check his own record. After a war the soldier is generally very anxious to leave the army and he does not bother to check his record.
I suggest that each soldier be issued a medical record book which would be considered legal in proving future claims or in connection with any contact he may have with the government. Every time a man went to hospital he would have to take his book along and have the proper entry made. That would be the basis of establishing future claim. If a man came to me with such a book I would consider it most valuable. I have known of men who were trying to establish claims who had served in units where all the documents have been lost. I have also known of cases where the records have been kept in a most sloppy manner by the orderly rooms with the result that a man might get treatment-I know of one case in particular- and no record be made. Then twenty years later when he suffers from a disability his record does not show he had had treatment. In this particular case we were fortunate in being able to produce satisfactory proof that the damage had taken place at that time.
I do not know what form the book could take, but it should be of substantial material so that it could be carried in the man's pocket on active service. On leaving the army the man could look at his record and if he was not satisfied he could go to the military authority and have it corrected. That book would be the basis of all claims that he might make against the authorities.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to indicate my agreement with what has been said, particularly by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The hon. member suggested that civilian organizations could keep the public in Canada aware of what was going on in Korea. We are all too prone to forget that one of the most hideous combats the world has yet known is going on at the present time in Korea. The shocking figures that appeared in the press yesterday-and I have no reason to doubt their accuracy- of the wanton massacre of prisoners of war show to what depths of degradation human beings can sink. Therefore I wish to record, with other members who have spoken, my deep and sincere belief that everything possible should be done to make the life of our troops in Korea, when not immediately facing the enemy, as pleasant and as bearable as possible.
There is one other thing I wish to say and it has to do with the troops of the 27th

brigade who are going to Europe. We are sending troops from Canada at this time to do a job that troops from Canada have never done before. Up to the present time any expeditionary force leaving Canada has proceeded to an active zone of war for purposes of combat. No actual combat is going on in Europe today. Our troops are going there for two or three reasons, the chief one being to build up the resources and the striking force of the free world against aggression. In other words, for the first time in our history we are taking steps to lock the stable door before the horse gets out. I think that is a most admirable thing, and I think the government are perfectly justified in so doing. In fact any other course would be a negation of our obligations as a free world power.
Having said that, I was in Germany this year and I saw the mistakes that were being made occasionally-I will not say generally- by forces doing the same duty as our troops will be called upon to do. I want to compliment the government on getting out the booklet, which I believe is given to all service personnel leaving Canada, on being a Canadian soldier overseas, and having particular reference to the psychological job they are called on to do. We are sending troops to the continent to protect it from ever having to go through liberation again. In other words, we are sending troops there so that aggression can be stopped before it overruns friendly countries, but whether we like it or not we must remember that there is an obvious resentment on the part of certain European countries toward the occupation forces. I think that is obvious, and the booklet in question sets it out.
I believe nothing that Canada can do is more important than to impress on Europe the job that our troops are going to do there at the present time. I think the good will that Canada has in Europe today is higher than that of any other country, and it is the result of what the Europeans saw of our troops before. With the natural resentment against more troops actively fomented by the communist party with which we are at war, or at least fighting, nothing could do us more harm than any let-down of the high standard of behaviour of Canadian troops. I think the pamphlet put out is excellent and I am sure that the department is doing all it can in this regard.
The troops of the 27th brigade have a dual job. They have the job of fighting physical aggression should it occur, and they also have the job of almost being ambassadors, of good will, I would say, to a war-torn, severely damaged and morally depressed continent. I saw that condition when I was

in Germany. Whether or not we like it, the Germans are a well disciplined, orderly and workmanlike people. There is nothing they appreciate or understand more than a smart, well turned out soldier with a high regard for his regiment. I mention that simply to indicate that I think the action of the government in issuing the booklet is good. When the units of the 27th brigade leave the continent, should the crisis ever be resolved, I trust that they will leave with the same good will toward them as there was for our navy when it left the Mediterranean.
I want to repeat the final signal to our navy from the admiral at Gibraltar. He said: Good-bye, Canada, you were a breath of fresh air to this old sea. I am sure that our troops going to Europe today with that high ideal and high resolve will bring a breath of fresh air to that tired and rather demoralized continent.


Brooke Claxton: The remarks and suggestions of the hon. members who have spoken on this resolution are warmly appreciated and will be given the most serious consideration. With very few exceptions I think all were really outside the terms of the resolution but since hon. members have advanced them perhaps I may be allowed a similar freedom in commenting on them briefly. First, with respect to the question of welfare and educational services, which was mentioned by several hon. members, a statement was made in the house on this subject on October 29, and is to be found at page 477 of Hansard. It deals with both the services that are now being provided and some of the reasons why we feel we cannot do more at the present time. I emphasize that. Conditions in Korea are very different from those in western Europe as we knew them in the first or second world wars. Our force is a different type of force in some respects.
In his interesting remarks the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred to the fact that there are seven or eight men back of each man in the front line. I believe that would be a fair estimate, for the situation that arises in a full scale war with base workshops, reinforcement and training depots. The number might even be larger. Here we have endeavoured to keep the overhead just as low as possible in regard to personnel not engaged in actual operations. Speaking from memory, my guess would be that the figures in this case are actually the reverse and that we have seven or eight men in fighting formations for every man back of them on administrative or similar jobs.
Canadians have a habit, which is well known to all of us, of comparing the things *we do with the things that are done in
Canadian Forces Act
Britain or the United States. Having made that comparison we usually expect that we will give our people not the best there is in the United States or in Britain, but the best there is anywhere. This is a desirable aim, and it is our aim today. In addition to having, by arrangement, all the welfare services the United States has that are available to us in the theatre, and all the services the commonwealth troops have that are available in the theatre where our troops are engaged, we also have the additional services I mentioned that we provide. If we duplicated everything it would not be carrying out that kind of combined operation we are aiming to have in Korea. The forces of thirteen countries are there, and if each one of us set up the different services and had our own supply lines and the like, it would add greatly to the burden on transportation already involved.
As I indicated, we have with the brigade in Korea six full-time welfare officers and additional N.C.O.'s and men engaged in fulltime welfare activities. We have also thirteen chaplains. Altogether this I am informed totals more personnel engaged on these services, in comparison of the number engaged, than were engaged in similar services in western Europe. It has been asked whether or not we are doing everything possible. Unfortunately it has not been possible for me to go to Korea yet. I intended to go last May, then in June and then in July, but it has not been possible. I asked Brigadier Rockingham, when saying good-bye to him at Fort Lewis, to report to me personally if he ever felt that there was anything the troops needed. In Japan as liaison officers we have had Brigadier Fleury, succeeded by Brigadier Bernat-chez, former commanding officer of the 22nd, both very experienced officers; yet no one of them has reported that they want anything additional in the way of welfare or educational services or food or clothing. From what I know of Brigadier Rockingham and the officers serving with him in that theatre, they would be the first to see that their men got whatever it was possible to give them.
Further, at my invitation the heads of the four principal churches visited Korea. On their departure I sent each one a persona] message expressing the appreciation of the department and services that they should have undertaken this visit; and I asked them to bring to my attention personally, either at once or on their return, anything that they thought should be done. They are not all back as yet, but so far I have heard nothing in that regard. The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra quoted a press report of an

Canadian Forces Act
interview with the Primate of the Anglican Church. I should like to quote the preceding paragraph. It reads:
The primate visited every unit ol the Canadian brigade and said he found the troops well clothed and fed, and well led. Their relations with the Korean civilian population were excellent.
I have mentioned the situation as we understand it. I go much further than that and say that if something needs to be done at any stage, then we shall see that it is done and done in the most effective way possible. So far I am informed by the officers who have been there that they do not believe more could be done under the circumstances.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) brought up several questions relating to pensions and allowances. Some of those questions should be put to my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). The hon. member suggested, as he has on other occasions, that the widow of a soldier who had service in the second world war and who died while with the Canadian forces, but whose death was not attributable to service, should nevertheless entitle his widow to a pension. This is a question for veterans affairs, but I would point out that if we were to extend the principle to that extent we would be really extending the insurance principle to service personnel in peacetime, and that is a pretty large advantage to give to service personnel and not other classes of the community. We have tried in so far as we could with pay, allowances, clothing and all the other aspects of service, to put personnel in the three services on a footing similar to that enjoyed by persons doing similar jobs in the best industries in Canada. We are trying to maintain that standard. The hon. member referred to dependents allowances at this time. 1 have nothing to add to the answer given by my parliamentary assistant in the house yesterday.
Several members referred to the desirability of the department making compulsory assignments of pay to wives who were not receiving payments from their husbands. Let me ask hon. members this question. Would it make for justice and ease of administration or a sense of fairness if service personnel saw that the Department of National Defence was making an arbitrary decision as between a man and wife, or substituting its decision for that of the civilian courts? We have taken the view that that is not our job in peacetime, and I think that attitude would commend itself to the judgment of most hon. members. If the wife obtains an order from the courts for assignment, then of course we respect the court order. We are now considering reverting to the wartime practice of making entitlement to married allowances
fMr. Claxton.l
dependent upon an assignment. The development of the armed forces, and this half-war we are in today, may perhaps make that desirable. I have already seen a draft of an order to give effect to this. It would not require any amendment to the act, but an amendment to the pay and allowances regulations.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Your department also have their officers use a little pressure on the men.


Brooke Claxton: That is right. We do that in the case of any creditor but more than in other cases, the wife.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I know they have done it in many cases.


Brooke Claxton: We do that particularly in the case of a wife. If a wife is not receiving proper treatment by her husband she usually writes the commanding officer, and the commanding officer parades the man and goes into the case. We are also assisted in this work by the welfare officers of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Wherever a case of that character arises the wife can go to the Department of Veterans Affairs welfare officer-and they are distributed right across the country-and the case will be looked into; then a report will be made not only to the commanding officer of the unit but to headquarters as well, and we will use all possible moral persuasion.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is what I meant.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member for Kamloops referred to the welcome being extended by Canadians to the returning troops. I appreciate what he said, and I myself have looked into this matter in connection with the return, for example, of a company of Princess Patricia's due today. I asked that arrangements should be made to give them a suitable welcome. The difficulty about the matter is this. Our troops for the most part come back on United States troopships and land at the port of Seattle. The troopship arrives with some hundreds or thousands of men on board. The city of Seattle has been magnificent in giving both sends-offs and receptions to the troops, including Canadians. It is a big occasion. Then our units go on board a train and arrive at Vancouver, or at other centres across Canada, in relatively small parties. This makes the job of welcoming much more difficult from the point of view of arousing civilian interest. Furthermore, a considerable number of our returning troops are brought back in our own aircraft; they include men who have been wounded, men returning for courses and men who have served their terms. They arrive at air stations at all hours of the night and day and

from there are taken to their final destinations. It is therefore difficult to give to them the welcome that we should like to give.
The hon. member for Kootenay West asked if reserve units had independent working arrangements so that one unit could do one thing and another unit do another. They are all subject to the same regulations. They have the same training syllabuses and the same kind of training equipment. All of them have administrative and training officers and N.C.O.'s provided by the active force, and who themselves receive the same instructions. As far as possible they are given the same work to do and the same equipment to do it with. Generally speaking there is uniformity of training methods. However, when that is said and done, as all hon. members know who have seen service, a good deal depends on the commanding officer and the officers and men in the unit, as well as upon the locality, so there are differences due to those factors.
The hon. member asked if the reserve units enlisted men to play games in leagues; that is, men who have no other duty than to play for the units. That certainly would not be countenanced under the regulations. I do not know of any such cases. I know, however, that some units are extremely glad indeed to get good athletes to play for their teams. But in all cases I have ever heard of, those men play the games in addition to performing their regular military duties. Certainly the two grand players on the Ottawa Rough Riders team-Tony Golab and Don Loney who played this year-were both full-time service personnel well up with their military duties.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre advanced an additional reason for using the welfare agencies, namely that it would tend to attract the interest and the support of the Canadian people. That is an important factor. 1 should like to pin on his remarks a strong plea for support of the Canadian Legion and its service in supplying reading matter and other similar things to the forces abroad and of the Canadian Red Cross in its work in supplying not only comforts to men in hospitals-which they do extensively-but also in its campaign to collect and to supply blood plasma for the use of our forces abroad and at home, and also build up a mobilization reserve.
The hon. member for Yale referred to medical records. As to the records of men who served in the second world war, those are in the custody of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Our experience has been that for the most part the records are very 94699-67
Canadian Forces Act
complete and full indeed. I will look into the suggestion he made that each man should carry a medical record. I may say, however, that I think there are rather grave logistic difficulties in the way. My recollection is that the medical records of a man now total some ten or eleven forms, including X-ray, X-ray analysis, teeth and so on; and that to summarize these in a book would be a large scale operation.
The hon. member for York West referred to the force going to Europe, the 27th Canadian infantry brigade. I appreciate his remarks. Lately we have instituted a bureau of current affairs designed to do just that job both there and elsewhere in the Canadian forces. The director of the bureau, Mr. Harry Low, will be leaving with me on Friday. Next Sunday we will be visiting the air force squadron which arrives today at North Luffenham. Mr. Low will go with me to Germany where we will visit brigade headquarters, and also be on hand to greet the infantry battalion of the 27th Canadian infantry brigade when it arrives at Rotterdam next Wednesday. He is coming with me to see that everything possible is done to make arrangements with all the North Atlantic treaty nations for courses, lectures, leaves, tours, exchanges of photographs, bulletins and the like, so that our forces have every possible opportunity to make the most of their stay abroad and come back even better Canadians.


Mr. Blackmore:: Before the minister gets too far away from dealing with some of these matters, I wonder if he would give some thought to the advisability of granting a cost of living bonus to the dependents of servicemen for at least as long as the high prices from which we are now suffering persist. It seems to me that a sufficient addition to the allowances has not been made to enable the dependents to keep anywhere near abreast of the high cost of living. Will the minister say a few words upon that matter? Before I take my seat I should like to commend the minister on the general air of thoroughness which appears to pervade his whole department and the activities of the troops, as far as I have been able to see. I was one of the fortunate who had the privilege of visiting Camp Borden not very long ago, and I kept my eyes and ears open all the way through. I endeavoured to keep my critical faculties alert. Everything I saw in Camp Borden was commendable to a very high degree. I thought that if Camp Borden was an index by which we could judge the general state of affairs in the Department of National Defence then we could rest assured that our generation was doing its best to discharge its

Canadian Forces Act
responsibilities not only to the men who are in the services, but to the people who are back behind the men, who after all are suffering the anxiety of the incidence of war. Meanwhile, will the minister now tell us something about this whole matter of increasing allowances at least temporarily?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge. With regard to a cost of living bonus, or something of that character, I should point out that it has been the policy of the government generally not to pay a cost of living bonus which was directly related to the cost of living index, but to make adjustments from time to time in the pay of civil servants and the armed forces, and that matter is receiving continuous consideration.
With regard to the pay and allowances of the armed forces, immediately following the last war, in 1946, a committee was set up representative of the three services, the Department of Finance, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Labour, to draw up a new pay scale for all the services. As far as possible it was to be on a uniform basis, and an effort was made to relate the pay of each rank and trade in the services to what a man doing a corresponding job and having a corresponding background would get in industry. To arrive at what he would get in industry that committee looked at salaries and wages in the eight leading industries in Canada, made a very thorough study and arrived at a pay scale which was brought into effect for all three services on a uniform basis. Since then the rates of pay have been increased on three separate occasions, generally corresponding to the increases to the civil service. As I indicated before, our effort is to see that service personnel receive the equivalent of the salary or wage for a similar job in civilian life. By that I mean when you take into account his pay, allowances, pension, food, clothing, hospital, medical and dental services, personal transportation and in some cases accommodation, he is getting the same as he would get in civilian life. Valuing these things which are given in kind quite realistically, in point of fact he does better than a man would do in an equivalent job in civilian life, in so far as you can make them equivalent. The only reason he does not appreciate that he does somewhat better is that so much of it is given in kind, but I can assure the hon. member that the incidence of the cost of living on service personnel is subject to continuous consideration.
The hon. member for Kamloops made another observation which I should deal with.
He suggested that the form of the statute might be changed so as to have each amendment placed in a separate bill to amend each of the different statutes. This bill, which has 29 clauses, actually amends 25 statutes. Many of the amendments are like the substitution of the word "army" for "military" or something of that kind. They are quite formal. As the hon. member will appreciate, to have each of 25 statutes go through some twelve stages in this house and the other place would amount to a great deal of work and lead to some delay. However, I should tell him that this is a matter of some importance. After the enactment of the National Defence Act in 1950 we decided that where it was necessary to have an amending statute relating to defence it would be done in one single bill each year, to be called the Canadian Forces Act, 1951, 1952, 1953 and so on, which would make it very convenient for us and for hon. members in following through defence matters. That has been the practice in the United Kingdom and I think they find it works very well there. However, We will consider his point further.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate what the minister has just said with regard to the matter of form which 1 raised, and also the fact that it is going to be considered; but I should like to go back to the other point with regard to the return of Canadian troops from Korea to Canada. I assure the minister I appreciate fully the difficulty which he has spoken of in organizing that type of welcome. I just want to put forward this suggestion. I do not want to ride a horse until it is dead, but I suggest that the department take under consideration asking the auxiliary services to provide welcoming committees because, while I should like to see a great big welcome, the fact is that properly done it does not take a great many people to give that atmosphere of warmth and convince the troops that there are people really glad to see them back here. I think that first impression of a warm greeting is so important. I believe the auxiliary services and the Red Cross might be the best qualified actually to undertake that work.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. I should answer the hon. member for Peel now. On the orders of the day he asked me if there were any Canadian prisoners of war. I told him that as far as my recollection went there were not any. There are no known prisoners of war. There are two missing but we have no information that they are prisoners.


Mr. Crestohl:: I should like to address myself to one or two statements made by the hon. member for York West a few moments

ago. I am sorry 1 cannot share the views he expressed when he proceeded to glorify the German soldier. Certainly that statement should not go unchallenged on the floor of this house. In one breath the hon. member refers to some atrocities committed in Korea by the Chinese communists when several thousand troops were massacred, and in the next breath he proceeds to glorify the type of soldier who was proven guilty of the identical offence which he describes as a crime committed the other day. I should like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the House of Commons or any other platform should not be used to glorify anyone who has been found guilty of crimes against humanity, irrespective of whether it was done by communists on the extreme left or by nazis on the extreme right.


Agar Rodney Adamson: If the hon. member will read my remarks he will find that I said the Germans are a military people. They appreciate soldierly behaviour; I think my words were "discipline, smartness and a high esprit de corps for regimental tradition." I said nothing about the German soldier whatsoever; and as one who has been to Dachau and what is left of Belsen now, I can assure him that I deplore-and that is a mild word-the atrocities committed by the nazis. But that does not take away from the importance of the good will of the present democratic Germany, which can be maintained or which can be created by the soldierly behaviour, which I am sure will obtain, of our 27th brigade. That is the point I was making. I was not glorifying the German soldier whatsoever-although as I think anyone who has fought against him the way I have will admit the German soldier is a first class fighter.


The Chairman:: Order. I think we have allowed a good deal of latitude. I will ask hon. members to stay more closely to the resolution.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I was only answering an accusation made against me, which I wished to refute immediately.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to revert to the matter of pay and allowances, and to deal with it in somewhat more detail. Let us suppose an accident occurred in a family, requiring medical care and hospitalization. Under those circumstances it would seem to me that the dependents, having that extra burden to absorb, would find it next to impossible to carry on, unless some sort of arrangement were made to extend help. I realize that this problem has far-reaching
Canadian Forces Act
ramifications and implications. I am wondering if we could not look at this whole question once again to see what could be done about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask the minister a question in this connection. I noticed that the minister described the discussion this afternoon as being perhaps on the fringe of the terms of the resolution. What I have in mind is at least inside the perimeter, if not right at the centre of the matter. I note that the opening part of the resolution contains these words:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Defence Act to provide for the payment of compensation in respect of the death or disability of persons employed in or with the public service of Canada while performing functions in relation to the Canadian forces,-
Perhaps I can best illustrate the matter I have in mind by referring to a case, the particulars of which I have on my desk, including correspondence I have had with the minister. I am still interested in this case, but it also illustrates the need for making sure that the act provides for any similar cases in the future. What the hon. member for Lethbridge has just said certainly brings it to my mind.
This is the case of a chap who served in world war II and who, after the war, was in the reserve army. He was called up for active service during the time of the flood in Winnipeg, in May and June of 1950. While serving full time in that connection he met with a very serious accident. Indeed, the newspaper report I have in my hand, which deals with the accident, is headed, "Youth held as soldier near death". In other words there was a time when the life of this soldier hung in the balance. There was a possibility of a situation such as that described by the hon. member for Lethbridge, wherein he might have lost his life, with his wife and family left in dire need as a result.
The circumstances were that this soldier who, as I have already said, was at this time on full-time duty with the army, was returning home about midnight in the company of three other soldiers from the same unit. He had with him a pass authorized by his unit, and this fact is confirmed in the minister's letter to me of November 10, 1951. It appears that as these four soldiers were returning home on this occasion, after doing their work in connection with the flood, according to this dispatch in the Winnipeg Free Press they heard a woman's scream which had come from one of the trucks

Canadian Forces Act
parked on a lot located near the building occupied by a certain company in Winnipeg. The article goes on to say:
The foursome ran to the area to Investigate when a man jumped out of a truck, knocked-
The soldier in question-
-down, jumped back in and hurriedly drove off.
Then the next paragraph begins with this man's name, which I am deliberately omitting, and states that this man-
-whose head struck the ground, was picked up in a semi-conscious condition by an army provost vehicle and taken to Fort Osborne barracks. From there, he was transported by ambulance to Deer Lodge hospital.
For a number of days his life hung in the balance. He was cared for most efficiently and effectively at Deer Lodge hospital. In due course he was released from the hospital and permitted to go home. It was understood, however, that it would be some considerable time before he would be able to go back to his work. Indeed, he was not to go to work until he was given his release. In other words, he was not discharged from full-time service until it was possible for him to return to his civilian employment. His hospitalization was fully paid for, and he was kept on full pay and allowances as long as he was in the hospital. But when he was released from the hospital and sent home, although he was still on the roll, no provision for pay and allowances was made for him. He tells me that he understood from the medical officer at Deer Lodge hospital that he would be paid for that period. In addition to that, when he received a cheque on August 9 from the Receiver General of Canada there was with it a notation which read:
The above cheque covers hospital period May 28 to June 9, 1950 only; the balance, June 10 to July 9 will have to be authorized by army headquarters.
When I took this matter up with the minister-and may I say he has been good enough to go into the case-he replied to my reference to that notation the soldier received from the Receiver General of Canada by saying that this "notice is not understood, as there are no regulations whereby army headquarters or the minister's department may grant pay and allowances to a soldier of the reserve force following discharge from hospital, where the injury is not attributable to the performance of duty."
I realize the line that can be drawn here, that the accident did not occur while he was on military operations as such, and did not occur while he was building dikes or doing any work in particular in connection with the flood. However, it did occur while he and his companions were on the way home. As the

minister says in his letter of November 10, he held an authorized pass. Yet the minister says the regulations prohibited the department from granting this soldier the pay and allowances he was led to believe he would receive for the time he was home on convalescent leave. This chap had a position with Eaton's when he was called up, and of course his pay there stopped. That company could not be expected to keep him on pay until he was able to return to work. So he lost remuneration for a period of three or four weeks, and it created quite a problem for him.
I note that this resolution proposes to deal with the payment of compensation in respect of death or disability of persons employed in or with the public service of Canada, and so on. It is fortunate that this chap's danger of death did not materialize that way; but his disability proved to be a matter of serious inconvenience in financial terms. I am wondering whether the bill to be brought in on the basis of this resolution will take care of a situation like that. I have given the minister particulars of an actual rather than a hypothetical case. On a hypothetical basis one could think of a situation much worse. Will this legislation take care of a situation of that kind?


Brooke Claxton: It is not intended to. I
think the hon. member was out of the chamber when I replied to another hon. member's observations. The question here is one of interpreting an existing statute, which is often a difficult matter. In every case brought to my attention I try to see that a fair and proper interpretation is given as justified under the law, yet the most favourable that can be given in favour of the man. It is simply a matter of the interpretation of an existing statute unless we are going to change the whole principle and have the insurance principle apply to service in the reserve and active forces. So far the government has not decided to do that and there is no legislation proposed to be offered at this session in that connection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the point made by the minister that as the law now stands it is a matter of interpretation. He has made that clear to me in the correspondence we have had. My hope was that this sort of case might have led the government to feel that a change was needed in the legislation. I point out that this chap was on full-time service, and I fail to see why there should be need of the introduction of any far-fetched new principle to take care of this sort of thing. I am sorry the legislation is not making this change and I hope this matter will receive further consideration.


Mr. Coldwell:: I should like to support
what the hon. member has said. I remember a case which I brought to the attention of the department during the war, concerning a young airman who was training, I believe at St. Thomas, and was away from barracks on a pass. He was returning home at night and when near the barracks he was knocked down and killed by a car driven by an officer of the forces in which he was serving. His father died shortly afterwards and the widow has had to earn her living at a fairly advanced age. It seems to me there should be some modification of the law to cover cases of that sort.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Claxton thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, respecting the Canadian forces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


Brooke Claxton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve an agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces when present in the territory of one another; to provide on a reciprocal basis for certain exemptions for personnel in a country other than their own from income tax, customs duty and certain other taxes; and to provide for the settlement of claims arising out of death, personal injury or property damage resulting from the negligence of their members.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, the bill which has just been introduced was technical enough, but I can assure hon. members that the bill to follow this resolution will be even more technical. Its purpose is to approve an agreement that Canada and the other North Atlantic treaty nations entered into at London on June 19, 1951. On the same day the Prime Minister made a statement in the house, which appears at page 4279 of Hansard, and tabled a copy of the agreement. A copy of the agreement will appear as an annex to the bill to be introduced.
Perhaps I can make plain the reason for this legislation when I say that without such legislation in effect in this and other countries the forces of Canada and the other North Atlantic treaty nations when in another country would have no more rights or ' mmunities than tourists. In respect of the
North Atlantic Treaty
laws of the country they were visiting they would be in the same position as one travelling on civilian business. That would affect their position with regard to passports, immigration, health services, taxation, customs, and civil and criminal jurisdiction.
To provide for this we passed the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, which deals with the situation with regard to forces of the commonwealth which happen to be in Canada. The commonwealth countries have adopted similar legislation to give us reciprocal rights and immunities. We also adopted the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act in 1947 which dealt with United States forces which happened to be in Canada. Canadian forces have exactly the same rights in the United States. The bill now proposed will follow along the lines of this legislation. It will approve the agreement and give effect to these provisions.
I can perhaps make clear the need for this legislation by an incident that occurred during the second world war which was as curious as it was charming. You may remember that in 1942, I think it was, Canadian forces were sent to the assistance of the United States forces in turning the Japanese out of the Aleutian islands. When the Canadian forces arrived at the border between the Yukon and Alaska they came up against United States law officials because there was no provision under the United States tariff whereby the weapons and personal equipment of forces could pass into the United States free of duty, even though those forces were going to help the United States in turning enemy forces out of United States territory.


Gordon Graydon: They should have had Wes Stuart with them.


Brooke Claxton: So it was found, of course, that it would not be possible to pass legislation to deal with the situation rapidly enough, and someone in the state department, which was brought in immediately, hit upon a very ingenious solution to the matter which is revealed in this letter from the great secretary of state, Mr. Cordell Hull, to the secretary of the treasury. I only learned of the letter at a dinner given for the permanent joint defence board when one of its members referred to the incident. Up to that time it had never come to light. I got a copy of the letter from the state department and permission to use it. The letter reads:
As a result of informal conversations between an officer of the department of state and an officer of the treasury department, I have been advised that your department considers that the only way in which free entry can be accorded to these Canadian troops in Alaska is for them to be designated as distinguished foreign visitors by the department of state. It gives me much pleasure to designate the

North Atlantic Treaty
Canadian forces who are now or may later be operating in Alaska in association with the armed forces of the United States as distinguished foreign visitors. These gallant Canadian forces are, I believe, the first foreign troops since Lafayette to stand beside our own armed forces in expelling the enemy from American soil.
To deal with that kind of situation in -reverse we have passed certain legislation to which I have referred, and we have also agreed with the other eleven North Atlantic treaty nations to pass certain legislation. The bill to be introduced is designed to carry out our part of that undertaking. It is obvious that it is very much to our advantage to have this legislation enacted because, as the matter stands, and as appears likely to be the case, it is practically certain that there will be far more Canadian troops abroad in other countries than there will be foreign troops in Canada. Consequently it is very much to our advantage to have the other countries pass this legislation, and we are setting the example, I think, by enacting it first.
The 27th Canadian infantry brigade is on the way to Europe. Some elements have already arrived and the main units will begin to arrive, as I have said, on November 20 or 21. We have made arrangements with the government of The Netherlands that such requirements will be waived in respect of Canadian troops in their passage through The Netherlands. We have also made arrangements with the allied high commission, which is the responsible defence authority in western Germany, that while our troops will not be occupation troops and will have no occupation duties they will have the same status with respect to rights and immunities as if they were British, American or French forces, which have been there since the end of the war.
The proposed legislation would define the legal status of a visiting force present in Canada with the consent of, and under arrangement with, the government of Canada. It includes provisions respecting jurisdiction, exemption from taxation, the settlement of claims, and possession and carriage of arms. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, provision has been made to ensure the security and protection of the installations, equipment and records of a visiting force. In cases of immigration and local procurement, no new legislation is necessary.
The bill would provide for its application to signatory states as the need arises; and it may be applied in whole or in part depending upon the circumstances. It is quite conceivable that it may become desirable to apply the measure to visiting forces of commonwealth countries, other than the United Kingdom, who are not signatories to the agreement. The measure accordingly provides

that its provisions may be applied to countries other than signatory states. It is not proposed at this time to repeal either the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, or the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act; but to avoid the uncertainty which would arise from having those acts and the proposed legislation in effect at the same time it will be possible to make parallel provisions of the visiting forces acts inapplicable from time to time and for such length of time as may be necessary.
Finally the measure includes explicit parliamentary approval of the agreement, which is a schedule to it. In examining the terms of the agreement and the implementing provisions in the proposed measure, I would ask hon. members to do so always bearing in mind the fact that Canada will, to a far greater extent, find itself playing the role of a sending state rather than a receiving state. From a purely selfish point of view we stand to gain more from the adoption of this legislation than the other countries concerned stand to receive. The only considerable groups of forces that are likely to be in Canada at any time are the United States forces on the leased bases in Newfoundland. There are special provisions applicable to them, but we expect that this legislation will, to the extent that it goes, replace those special provisions.
As hon. members know, we also have in Canada from time to time small groups of forces from other countries undergoing training. Whether or not this legislation will apply to them will depend on how many there are at any given time. At the present time, if I recall correctly, we have in training in Canada officers and some men from Great Britain, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Italy, Norway and several countries of the commonwealth.
Therefore this measure is one of the steps designed to carry out our undertakings under the North Atlantic treaty. It is one of the stages whereby effect is given to the treaty, and provision is made to make it just as workable as it can be in order to bring about that degree of co-operation, understanding and partnership which is essential if the North Atlantic community is to play its great part in preserving peace and maintaining our collective and individual security by preventing aggression.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there any time limit within which this legislation must be enacted by the agreeing countries? Is there any possibility that some of them will neglect to enact similar legislation?


Brooke Claxton: I doubt it very much, but we would not bring our legislation into effect except by proclamation at the time we would secure reciprocal rights and privileges.


Gordon Graydon: Have any of the others done
so already?


Brooke Claxton: Not as far as I know, but we are in touch with them and they are in various stages of drafting and so on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have had an opportunity of seeing a copy of the agreement which is to be attached to the legislation, and in general can say that we accept the legislation as being in the best interests of Canada for the reasons just given by the minister. I think, however, I will have to make one reservation. I believe there may be members from Newfoundland who will desire to take up separately the matters to which the minister referred, because there are special conditions and circumstances in that province. But that does not alter the fact that in general we believe the legislation is desirable and to our advantage.
It seemed to me as I read it that, beyond the advantages the minister detailed, it is an effort to carry into general application the arrangement made between ourselves and the United Kingdom in the last war, particularly with respect to property damage, under what was known as the "knock for knock" agreement. Without wishing to give other countries the occasion for criticism, it did seem to me in reading it that, in the light of all the circumstances, since there will be more Canadian troops concerned than others, it was to our advantage to such an extent that I wondered whether someone might complain about it. Certainly that is not grounds for criticism on our part, but rather grounds for supporting it so long as it does not become a measure for creating unfairness. If that situation should arise I would hope that the signatory parties would agree to changes which would accommodate the situation. It is in that spirit, I assume, that the agreement was signed, and certainly in that spirit we are agreed that it should be acceded to by Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister explain the relationship between the bill which is the basis of this resolution and Bill No. 15, an act to provide for privileges and immunities in respect to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Brooke Claxton: There is a close relationship, as the hon. member implies in his remarks. This does on the military side what it is intended the other bill should do on the civil side.
North Atlantic Treaty


Gordon Graydon: Sometime ago the minister tabled the agreement envisaged in this resolution, and it will, no doubt, be attached to the bill when it is introduced. This question arose in the other debate on the resolution concerning the privileges and immunities for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I could not quite see why the Secretary of State for External Affairs could not have tabled the agreement in that case, as the minister has done here. We did not have it while the resolution was being discussed, and the first time we saw it was when the bill was brought down because the agreement was attached to the bill. It seems to me the cases are so parallel that the same procedure ought to have been followed by both departments, and they should have followed the procedure adopted by the Minister of National Defence.


Brooke Claxton: In my capacity as Minister of National Defence I thank the hon. member for his kind observations on what we have done. In my capacity as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, I express regret that it was not done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I ask the minister to recall the kind of case I was discussing a few moments ago under the other legislation. Having done that, I should like to ask him whether in the case of visiting forces there is a broader protection than exists for our own forces at home? I ask that question because I notice that the last part of the resolution reads:
. . . and to provide for the settlement of claims arising out of debt, personal injury or property damage resulting from the negligence of their members.
Can that be read as meaning one of our-


Brooke Claxton: It would have no bearing on your case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not on the point I was raising before, but my point is this. If the other countries that are members of NATO passed similar legislation, and if one of our soldiers was in another country and hurt in the manner that this chap was hurt here, would he not be protected by this legislation?


Brooke Claxton: It is hard enough to deal with these cases in one's own country without dealing with hypothetical questions about another country. I shall be glad to ask the lawyers about it and give the hon. member an answer when we get to the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the minister for doing that. It looks as if we would be providing that kind of coverage for our men when they are in other countries and for other soldiers

North Atlantic Treaty
when they are here, so surely we should provide it for our own soldiers when they are home.


Mr. Pouliot:: Surely the hon. member knows there can be no extraterritoriality for the enforcement of legislation in any country. If we pass legislation like this, then it will be in force in Canada, but it will not be in force in any country where similar legislation has not been adopted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not think that is the point I was discussing.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand the point my hon. friend advanced. I listened to him and I am showing my appreciation1 by making a comment on what he said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Merci beaucoup.


Jean-François Pouliot: Vous etes tres aimable. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of unilateral legislation that is supposed to precede multilateral legislation. I am anxious to see the agreement and to ascertain the number of countries signing it. To a certain extent I am always concerned about legislation following agreements with NATO owing to things that have been said by important people in other countries that they want NATO to have more control over some important matters. Inasmuch as the Canadian parliament is asked for its consent to legislation signed by all the members of NATO, it is not so bad. But I fear the time when NATO may assume some sort of dictatorship over its members. I shall not say anything now, but I fear that unless everyone is very careful in the not too distant future the prerogatives of parliament will be replaced by a unique direction from the NATO command.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Claxlon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, to implement an agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces, signed on the 19th day of June, 1951.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gregg that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Annuities Act to increase the maximum annuity which may be purchased under the act from twelve hundred dollars up to twenty-four hundred dollars and to provide greater

flexibility in the provisions of the act relating to the issue, conversion and amendment of annuity contracts and payments thereunder.
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilion West):: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) which was given on Thursday last raises a number of interesting possibilities. As reported at page 863 of Hansard, the minister said:
Considering, therefore, the purpose of the act, to promote voluntary savings for old age security, it is appropriate that this bill to extend the facilities afforded by the act should be considered by this house at a time when parliament has under consideration legislation making provision for payment of an old age pension to Canadian residents 70 years of age or over.
The first question that comes to mind is this: What provision does the government propose, if any, to equalize income for annuitants? Later on in his statement the minister partially answers this question. He cites the provisions to be made for three additional types of annuity contracts. The third provides for a combination of a term annuity with certain other authorized types of annuities. This would appear to answer the question, inasmuch as some explanation is given as to the manner in which provision would be made for the equalization of income from the date of retirement taking into account the availability of the pension under the Old Age Security Act. There is a further question, however, and this concerns those contracts which are now in force and are of some years' standing; the question is whether or not they will be revised under this new type of contract and if so, in what manner.
The next point which comes to my attention also arises out of the minister's statement when he said:
The purchase price of annuities and the amount of the annuity payable are calculated upon the basis of mortality tables approved by the governor in council for use under the act and the rate of interest allowed on the moneys paid on the purchase price of annuities and in calculating the amounts of annuity payable. This rate of interest is fixed by regulation approved by the governor in council.
I understand that the rate of interest is predicated on the average of rates paid on long-term Canadian government bonds. The question arises now as to whether this is a proper basis for computation. In last year's return I notice that the cost of annuities, as represented in the transfer to maintain reserves for the year ending March 31, 1951, was $659,786.67. Added to this we have the administration costs as shown in the estimates at page 219, for the same period. Although the estimate for last year was $802,660, the actual expenditures to January 31, with the estimated balance for the year, amounts to $757,638. These two items-that

is, the amount necessary to maintain reserves plus the cost of administration-make a total expenditure for the year of $1,417,425. With 275,813 contracts and certificates in effect, the portion of cost borne by the taxpayers of this country is $5.14 for each of those contracts.
The question then arises: To what extent will administration costs increase with the increase in annuities? I was interested to notice the remarks which were made by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, a former prime minister of this country, when on June 23, 1931, he spoke in support of a bill to reduce the maximum annuity from $5,000 to $1,200. At that time he said as reported at page 2917 of Hansard:
In view of the fact that the government itself defrays the costs of administration, and the rate of interest upon which computations with respect to annuities are made is four per cent-
Which it was at that time.
-which, as the house knows, is a very high rate- it has been suggested in many quarters that the fund is hardly solvent, because with the prolonging of life consequent upon modern scientific knowledge being applied to diet and hygiene, it is obvious that the old time computations of the period during which an assured might live must be based upon a lower interest rate than four per cent, which is the figure that has been used in connection with our annuity tables. Therefore the actuaries of the department, having gone over the matter roughly, are satisfied that we should not carry so large an annuity as $5,000 without making an amendment of our rates. That, of course, is undesirable, and so the suggestion by those who have the responsibility for administration-from the standpoint of pure administration apart from policy-is that $1,200 would be a reasonable maximum.
What interested me greatly in this excerpt from Hansard of that date is the former prime minister's statement that this action is taken:
-in view of the fact that the government itself defrays the costs of administration . . .
And further on:
. . . those who have the responsibility for administration-from the standpoint of pure administration apart from policy . . .
I think I should say at this moment that I am not, in these remarks, contending that this amount should not be raised. I think that a $1,200 maximum in 1931 compares favourably with a $2,400 maximum at the present time. I am raising some of these questions which occur to me as I proceed with the minister's statement.
The third one to which I should like to refer deals with the number of annuities and the manner in which they have increased in the last five years. Of the total premiums received since 1908, the minister announced that 50 per cent were received in the last five years. In sessional paper 62A the figures are given of the various contracts which 94699-68
Government Annuities Act have been issued since 1908. It is noticeable that from 1908 to 1933-that is, the first twenty-five years-some 16,000 contracts were issued. In the ensuing five years to 1938, 26,000 were issued. From 1938 to 1943 there were 47,000; from 1943 to 1948, 145,000. That is quite a jump. The average from 1943 to 1948 was 29,000 a year. We then come to 1949 with 36,000 contracts; 1950 with 21,000 and 1951 with 22,000. It would appear that the peak year was 1947, when 43,585 contracts were issued, which was closely followed by 1948 with 40,945. I wonder whether these figures of the past three years indicate that the absorption of industrial pension schemes has passed; its peak, or is there any indication of renewed acceleration? Will the new maximum of $2,400 tend greatly to increase the number of applications? I ask these questions, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think there is any doubt that the great increase in the last fifteen years or so has been largely due to the absorption or the merging of industrial pension schemes with the government annuities. As a matter of fact, in his statement the minister himself says that the rapid growth in recent years of employee retirement pension plans which have been underwritten by group contracts issued under the act is largely responsible for this increase. But whether these are new schemes, or whether it is merely the matter of the annuities branch taking over existing schemes and merging them, I do not know. It would be very interesting and helpful to know just what proportion of government annuities are sold to mature for less than $100 a month, the present maximum. In view of the new old age pension and the proposal to equalize pensions, already referred to, to what maximum monthly payment could the present annuities extend; I mean to what maximum monthly payment in the first period of retirement, which could conceivably be carried right on through in conjunction with the old age pension? I was interested in this regard to notice that in the report the Ives commission brought down in 1945 it was stated that 87 per cent of the recipients received less than $900, while 75 per cent received less than $600 a year. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in raising this maximum I think we should take into account the current demand and what these people are ready and willing to pay for, and what amount they can afford to invest in order to secure for themselves a return upon retirement.
Further in his statement the minister had this to say in regard to administration, as reported at page 864 of Hansard:
The purposes of the proposed amendments are to provide greater facilities for the benefit of pur-
<066

Government Annuities Act chasers and annuitants under the act, and to take care of some difficulties which have developed in the administration of the act.
This is a matter which should be gone into very carefully. I for one would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether in these amendments provision will be made for greater flexibility. I can understand that it is necessary for the minister to be vague about the administrative difficulties, but in view of the major portion of cost which is borne by the taxpayers it is perhaps well that more specific information should be forthcoming.
Again the minister said that the minimum annuity which may be purchased will be increased from $10 to $60 a year. This suggestion was made in the bill which was brought down in 1948, I believe it was, and which subsequently was not proceeded with. I think it is a decided improvement to raise the minimum. After all, $10 per annum actually is not of much use to anyone, and it brings up the point of the administrative difficulties, the paper work, to use a common expression, that is necessary to sell a contract in the first place, and the subsequent records which have to be kept. When all that is taken into consideration it hardly seems wise to consider pensions of such small amounts. But I wonder whether this new minimum is even high enough.
The minister said later on that cash surrender privileges are proposed. I wonder whether they will include refunds at any higher stage than the $60 minimum. Is provision to be made for the transfer of credits, if and when an employee changes employment? I believe that an employee should have the option of having his credits transferred to the pension fund of his new employer rather than lose the advantage he had gained by subscribing for an annuity at a younger age than he would be at the present time. I know this is a very serious problem to some people because there is a big difference between the yearly premiums -if we can call them that-that are payable at, say, age 30 and those that are payable at, say, age 40. If a man is bound to one employer by the fear of losing this advantage, then it scarcely seems right that he should be obliged to remain in less desirable employment through fear of not being able to provide for his own retirement. These and many more questions will be the subject of study of all those who are interested in these annuities, from the standpoint of the annuitant and from the standpoint of the employer where group schemes are in force

or in prospect, and certainly from the standpoint of the insurance companies who I understand have representations to make in this matter.
It would appear that the only place where all these questions can be properly studied is in a standing or special committee of this house. I recall that on reading Hansard for June, 1948, I found that the Minister of Labour, at that time Mr. Mitchell, promised that a committee would be set up to study this matter in the following year. Subsequently the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), towards the close of 1949, after the election, asked whether or not it was the intention to set up this committee. He had been told no a couple of times, but finally in December of 1949 he was told that it was the intention to set up the committee the following year.
We have a standing committee on industrial relations in this house, and we have a standing committee on banking and commerce. I wonder if the minister will say whether or not it is his intention to refer this bill to a committee, and if so, to which committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The house has made pretty good progress this afternoon. Maybe we can call it 6.15.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the
introduction of the bill forecast by the resolution now before the house. Each of the changes proposed in the Government Annuities Act is an acceptable and desirable change. Even so, there are a number of questions we will want to ask when we get into one of the committee stages, such as the questions enunciated just before six o'clock by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough).
Having said that there are features about the bill which make it acceptable, I should point out that we regard it as a good move, for those who can afford to purchase higher annuities, that the amount that can be purchased is to be increased from $100 to $200 a month. That is only in keeping with the increased cost of living and the decreased value of the Canadian dollar.
It is also to be pointed out that it is a good move to provide for kinds of annuities other than those that have been provided

thus far. The minister has pointed out that the bill will make possible the purchase of annuities for a limited period of time, up to twenty years, in addition to the type of annuity now available that runs for the balance of one's life. In addition, as has already been pointed out, there is to be a type of annuity which one can mesh with government old age security legislation. There is also one other type, but we can deal with that when we reach the committee stage. As I say, these new types of annuities are welcome and acceptable to us. From what we have heard thus far it would seem that the other changes are likewise worth considering, such as the possibility of a cash surrender value, and one or two other changes which have been proposed.
However, I think I should say before I go further that we regret that at this time, when something is being done about the Government Annuities Act, nothing is being done about the feature that is most important, namely the rate on which annuities are computed. The hon. member for Hamilton West had something to say about that this afternoon. Those of us who were here in 1948 will recall the suddenness with which the interest rate, the basis upon which annuity rates are computed, was reduced as from April 19 of that year. I have in my hand a copy of order in council P.C. 1713 which was passed on April 16, 1948, which was a Friday, and subsequently tabled in the house on Monday, April 19, 1948, having effect as from that date.
The two main results of that order in council were to change the interest rate from 4 per cent to 3 per cent, and to change the mortality tables used in computing the rates that are arrived at on the basis of the interest figure already determined. As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) pointed out the other day, the Government Annuities Act was first brought into being in 1908. If my information is correct, the rate used at that time was 4 per cent. Sir Wilfrid Laurier referred to that fact in the debate which took place in the house on June 18, 1908; and it remained at 4 per cent from that date until April 19, 1948.
We regret very deeply the change that was made at that time. In fact it seemed to us a bit of a blow to what was a very good plan to enable people to provide for their own retirement. We have no illusions about the Government Annuities Act being a plan that can meet the requirements of all the Canadian people; but it certainly was a good plan for those who were able to take advantage of it. But reducing from 4 per cent to
Government Annuities Act 3 per cent the interest figure used in computing the rates certainly reduced the value of government annuities. As we pointed out in 1948 when this change was made, the result was that anyone who had purchased an annuity prior to April 19, 1948, even though he might not have paid very much on it up to that time, still had the advantage of the 4 per cent interest rate; whereas those who purchased annuities after that date would have the advantage of only the 3 per cent rate.
We pointed out also that this created a division within the ranks of employees working for one and the same firm; for even though a firm may have had a group contract prior to April 19, 1948, any employee who became a participant in that contract after April 19, 1948, got his annuity at the new and less advantageous rate. I know of examples where employees working for the same firm pay in different amounts toward their retirement, because of the line that was drawn by the order in council to which I have referred.
In addition to the depreciation in the value of government annuities that was effected by changing the interest rate from 4 per cent to 3 per cent, that same order in council effected a change from the mortality table that had been in use up to that time to another table which is less advantageous to the purchaser of the annuity. This is spelled out in detail in the order in council. I have had occasion to put it on the record before, so I shall not repeat it tonight. But I would say again, as we pointed out in 1948, that we have felt that the change from one table to the other was unfair, particularly in view of the fact that in recent years the greatest increase in the number of annuities purchased has been by employees in group contracts. The other night the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) gave figures to show that there had been a substantial increase in this respect. For example, in 1941 there were 58,780 individual contracts and only 7,000 persons involved in group contracts. By 1951 the number of individual contracts had increased to 147,514, an increase of 147 per cent, while the individuals in group contracts had increased to 128,299, a rather staggering increase of 1732 per cent. I emphasize the fact that the greatest increase in the purchase of annuities, in recent years at any rate, is by employees of firms who arrange group contracts.
I have in my hand a brief protesting the increase in government annuity rates submitted by William M. Mercer Limited in June, 1948. In this brief this firm deals with the actuarial basis of the new rates. I point out again that the changes made in 1948
1068

Government Annuities Act were two, one decreasing the interest rate from 4 to 3 per cent and the other changing the actuarial basis by adopting a new mortality table. This author points out on pages 15 and 16 of the brief:
(b) The greatest volume of government annuities business is now concerned with the underwriting of group retirement plans where all employees, in poor and good health, are included, and where average life expectancies are much lower than among a group of individuals, each of whom has purchased an annuity because he has reason to believe that he will live long enough to at least see a return of his premiums.
The new mortality rates are based on a longer life expectancy. In view of the fact that life expectancy is increasing it seems plausible to adopt rates that recognize that fact, but it is one thing to adopt such rates when you are dealing with individual cases where each person is in a somewhat preferred class and another thing when you are dealing with a group of employees, some of whom are healthy and some of whom are not so healthy but who are all mixed in together. William M. Mercer Limited, I may say, has made a most exhaustive study of annuities, both public and private.
As we pointed out in 1948, we were deeply disappointed at the decrease in the value of annuities resulting from order in council P. C. 1713, which changed the rates of annuities on two counts. I have in my hand a document from the Department of Labour showing the cost of annuities under the old rates in effect prior to April 19, 1948 and under the rates that became effective after that order in council was passed. I find from this that a male aged 30 years purchasing an annuity of $100 a month to commence at 65 years and guaranteed for ten years would have had to pay $15.06 per month under the old rates, but would pay $20.50 under the new rates, an increase of 36 per cent. A female person, aged 20, buying an annuity of $100 per month to commence at age 60 and guaranteed for ten years would have had to pay $14.37 under the old plan, but pays $20.64 under the new, an increase of 43 per cent. These tables are available and hon. members can work out other examples for themselves.
Those are some of the changes effected by the order in council which Mr. Mitchell tabled on April 19, 1948. We regret that when the whole question of annuities is being looked into there is no suggestion from the government side that anything is going to be done to restore the rates which were in effect prior to that date in 1948- Apart from the excuse of changing the mortality tables, the


excuse that was given for changing the interest rate was that the interest rate on Canadian government bonds was down a bit from what it had been. Since then we have had at least one increase in the interest rate of one class of government bond. There have indeed been other increases, but I mention in particular that the new series of Canada savings bonds carries a rate of 3-21 per cent, when averaged out over the ten-year period, as compared with 2-75 per cent paid by the previous issue of the same series. If there has been a reversal of the trend that was indicated to the house in 1948 I suggest that recognition should be given to that reversal and the annuities brought back to the 4 per cent figure which was in effect for the forty years from 1908 to 1948.
I make this plea because so far as the great majority of Canadians are concerned, it is no use to tell them they can now purchase an annuity or retirement pension of $200 per month. They cannot afford to buy an annuity of $100 per month; they cannot afford to buy an annuity of $50 per month. What the people of this country really need is something to help them help themselves provide a better retirement than is proposed by the general legislation, and this help should be in the way of a reduction in the cost of annuities.
In this connection it is sometimes pointed out, and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) referred to it in one way and another this afternoon, that the administrative costs of government annuities are borne by the public treasury. There are some who argue, particularly those who have opposed the idea of the government being in this field, that these annuities should carry themselves. I should like to refer again to the Mercer pamphlet which I have before me, which states that the administrative costs of government annuities have approximated one per cent of the premium income, including both individual and group business. Then the pamphlet goes on to say:
When it is realized that the insurance companies allocate 71 per cent of the premium income from group business, and a much higher percentage from individual business, for administration expenses and commissions, the low administrative costs of government annuities are obvious.
We submit then, that the administrative costs of the government annuities branch have been so com-mendably low that they cannot possibly be used as an argument for an increase in rates any more than the selling and administrative costs of government bonds can be used as an argument to lower their yield.
As a matter of fact with respect to government bonds, as I have already pointed out- and certainly in the case of fcanada savings

bonds-since that time there has been an increase in the amount of interest to be paid. Another argument sometimes used against what is referred to as subsidizing these annuities is that they are there only for those who can afford them and therefore they should completely pay their way. May I point out that members of parliament generally, and I think the Canadian public too, have learned something more about the whole question of retirement security as a result of the work of the parliamentary committee of last year and as a result of the old age legislation which has already been passed by this parliament.
One thing that has come out of that study and has been driven home time and again is that no matter on what basis pensions are paid, whether they are old age pensions out of the public treasury, whether they are government annuities, whether they are private annuities or whether they are private savings, their value depends upon their purchasing power at the time they are spent. Indeed their value depends upon there being produced, at the time that money is spent, goods and services for those who have money to spend. In other words we have learned about this pay-as-you-go principle. We have learned that what counts is what is being paid in at any one time as against what is being drawn out at that same time by those who spend their so-called dollars on actual goods and services.
We have applied that principle without question to the Old Age Security Act which has already been passed by the house. We say in respect of that legislation that what is important is that there be enough set aside out of this year's production to pay for pensions in this year. I know there are certain differences with respect to an annuity plan. Members will say there is a fund. There is a fund on paper. There is a bookkeeping fund. There is not a separate fund in terms of dollars actually being set aside. The money is paid into the accounts of the receiver general and the annuities are likewise charged to the consolidated revenue fund. The fact is that in every year since 1908 the premiums paid in have exceeded the amounts paid out that year. That is increasingly the story as time goes on. On that basis, the plan is more than solvent.
I suggest it is time for us to look at the government annuity scheme in somewhat the same light that we look at the old age pension legislation which we dealt with at the end of last session and in the earlier part of the present session. On that basis I urge that
Government Annuities Act reconsideration be given to the question of the rates of these annuities. As I said a moment ago, it is desirable that the ceiling be raised to $200 a month instead of $100. An annuity of $100 a month just is not enough money to write home about any more. It is not enough to retire on in any sense of the word, to say nothing of those who have to live on $40. But the problem for most Canadians is not to get the right to buy a $208 pension instead of a $100 pension. The problem for most Canadians is to have the wherewithal to buy a pension of any amount whatsoever.
I hope that the greater interest the government is showing in this whole question of old age by its acceptance of the report of our committee and so on will result in a further review of this situation. In our study in the old age security committee we learned, for example, that in New Zealand, where they have had government pension schemes in effect for a good many years, the result so far as private pensions and private insurance are concerned has been to increase the amount of that sort of provision being made by citizens of that country. I hope that there will now be an incentive like that in this country. Up to now, so long as the means test has been in effect on pensions for those 70 and over, there has been little encouragement to Canadians to try to provide something for their old age. It is difficult enough to do anyway, but when people realized that such an amount as they might provide would simply result in their not being able to get the old age pension, for many people, workers in particular, the reply was: What is the use?
Now that the means test is off so far as those 70 and over are concerned-and let us hope it will be off at 65 one of these days very soon-there will be greater inducement to our people to try to provide some additional security to go with that which will be their right as citizens of this country. If we can look forward to people wanting to do that sort of thing, I suggest there is all the more reason why we should try to make it really possible and facilitate their efforts by putting the annuities act at least back on the basis it was on prior to 1948. As I say, it was in existence those many years at the 4 per cent rate and on the more advantageous mortality table. The change was made by order in council. True, the government had the right to do it by order in council because that was so provided in the original act of 1908, but

Government Annuities Act members who were here in the last parliament will recall the general outburst of feeling against the changes that were made at that time.
As I say, I deeply regret that with the matter now before us nothing has been done about this important phase of the question. The things that are being done are good. We will discuss them in committee here or in whatever committee to which the bill may be sent, but I suggest to the government this is not a piece of legislation to do much boasting about. If they are opening up the question of the annuities act the real job is to change the rates and at least put them back in the position they were prior to April 19, 1948.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the subject of annuities. The hon. member who preceded me made reference to the debate of 1948. I took occasion to go over that debate very carefully, and comparing the speeches on this matter by the late minister of labour, Mr. Mitchell, with those by our present minister, it seems to me there is not much in common. With respect to the legislation before us, the only change that is being made, and it is a rather substantial one, is that the amount of the annuity is to be increased from $100 to $200 a month. The hon. member who preceded me stated that was good, and so it is, but he thought it did not go far enough.
I want to develop that point a little further. I do not intend to set myself up as a prophet, but I cannot believe that this legislation is all the government has in mind. If it is all the government has in mind to bring before the house at this session of parliament, then there is something radically wrong about the statements that have been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I want to refer to a statement made by him just the other day. In the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, November 14, 1951, there is a report of a speech made by the minister over the trans-Canada network of the C.B.C. in the series, "The Nation's Business". The heading of the article is, "Prospect of Independence in Old Age". The Canadian Press dispatch reads as follows:
Health Minister Martin said last night that the federal government's old age security program is intended to ensure that Canadians, when they grow old, have the "prospect-not of charity-but of independence and a decent livelihood."
If, as the minister points out, our old age pensioners are to have independence and not
charity, this annuity bill which will follow the resolution cannot help them in that respect. There must be some other legislation which the government is contemplating, and I shall mention that later.
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare was introducing the pension legislation he gave us a little talk about the annuity program of the government which would work in conjunction with old age security. When the same minister was speaking over the air he indicated that the purpose of the government's old age pension was to give security and independence. When the minister spoke on October 25, 1951, about old age pensions he had this to say, as recorded at page 384 of Hansard:
I am sure that as this new program comes to be integrated into the existing pattern of retirement provisions provided by individuals, by employers and in other ways, it will be recognized for what it is intended to be-not as a total retirement security scheme in itself-
Notice that.
-not as a total retirement security scheme in itself, replacing and supplanting all others, but as the core, the keystone of a national savings and retirement plan, around which each individual in this country will be encouraged to build his own retirement security program in a manner and to an extent peculiarly suited to his own needs.
If you connect what the minister says about this not being intended as the whole plan for security for old age pensioners with what he said over the C.B.C. about independence, a decent livelihood and not charity, then there must be something more to come. On the same page of Hansard, the minister went on to say:
My colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) will shortly be revealing to this house the manner in which it is proposed to modify the government annuity scheme so as to fit into this new pattern.
Then he goes on to speak about the different types of the annuities which the government will bring down in order to integrate them into this old age pension scheme. When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) was speaking about this annuity plan we are discussing now, he went back to 1908 when the Government Annuities Act was introduced. He read the preamble of the bill which was introduced in 1908; that is to be found in Hansard for November 8, 1951, at page 863. It reads as follows:
The object of the act is to encourage systematic voluntary saving for old age security by providing facilities for that purpose. This is clearly set forth in the preamble to the act which reads as follows:
"Whereas it is in the public interest that habits of thrift be promoted and that the people of Canada be encouraged and aided thereto so that provision be made for old age; and whereas it is expedient that further facilities be afforded for the attaining of the said objectives.



IS, 1951

[Stage Direction]
The preamble of the measure in 1908 put forth the idea that the annuity bill would be the type of legislation which would encourage thrift, and would encourage people to lay money aside for their old age so they might not be living in poverty. Then the minister went on:
Considering, therefore, the purpose of the act, to promote voluntary saving for old age security, it is appropriate that this bill to extend the facilities afforded by the act should be considered by this house at a time when parliament has under consideration legislation making provision for payment of an old age pension to Canadian residents 70 years of age or over.
The bill we have before us cannot do that to any extent whatever, at least as it appears from the resolution. Of what use will it be to these people who are going to be dependent upon old age pensions to And out that our maximum annuity is being raised now from $100 to $200 per month? As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated, those people who can afford to buy a $200 per month annuity certainly will never need old age pensions. That being so, what sense is there in the preamble to the annuity bill of 1908? What sense is there attached to the statement the Minister of National Health and Welfare made over the air, or the one he made in introducing the old age pension legislation? What sense is there attached to the statement of the Minister of Labour on November 8? There is no sense attached to those statements.
When we go back, Mr. Speaker, and think of the reasons that were given in 1948 for the amendment to the annuities act which was introduced at that time-
Stanley Howard Knowles: By order in council.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, by order in council. It was made effective by order in council on April 19, 1948, and the rate of interest was reduced from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. Those of us who protested most vigorously at that time-and there were many of us-pointed out that this type of legislation was not going to be of assistance to the ordinary man for whom these annuities were originally intended. The reason the minister gave for lowering the interest rate from 4 per cent to 3 per cent was that this program had to be put on a pay-as-you-go basis. He pointed out the ridiculousness of any business enterprise being carried on when it was going in the hole all the time. He referred to some of the socialist legislation which was passed in Saskatchewan, and ridiculed it. One of the other reasons given in 1948 was that the interest rate on government bonds was being
Government Annuities Act lowered, and he did not want government annuities in competition with government bonds. The minister also pointed out that the interest rate charged by insurance companies had gone down and, therefore, taking the picture as a whole it was only reasonable that the interest rate on government annuities should be reduced from 4 per cent to 3 per cent.
I do not think those were good reasons for lowering the interest rate at that time, but if they were valid then let us look at conditions today. The interest rates on government bonds are up. Is there any logical reason then why the interest rate on annuities should not go up? The interest rate on insurance policies and loans made by insurance companies has gone up to 5 or 51 per cent. Is there any logical reason why the government should not at this session of parliament bring the interest rates on annuities up to where they were? Almost every reason given at the time of the reduction in rates has been offset, and those conditions no longer exist. In fact interest rates on other types of investments have risen, and the annuity is the only type of investment upon which the interest rate has not risen. What chance has the ordinary man of buying large quantities of government bonds? He has no chance. If he does buy them he has no assurance that they are going to stay at par. If he has an annuity, he knows it is going to stay there for life because no mortgage company, no person on earth can take that away from him. It is his, and nothing can be registered against it. It seems to me that what the Minister of National Health and Welfare was saying had some logic to it, when he was tying the old age pension in with this over-all annuity plan so these people would not have to accept charity but would have something they could call their own, and have a decent standard of living, if the government makes that possible. The only way that can be done is by the Minister of Labour bringing in an annuity plan which will be co-ordinated with the old age pension scheme in order to give these citizens, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, a decent standard of living.
The Minister of Labour and the parliamentary assistant must know that this legislation we now have before us will not do that. Something else must be done. There is no argument on earth that can convince me that a man who is going to need the old age pension can afford to buy an annuity of $200 a month. That argument is just ridiculous on its face. So that is not the

Government Annuities Act scheme which the government proposes to tie in with the old age pension. It just cannot work.
I know there are a number of schemes which the government proposes to bring in. There is the deferred life plan, the deferred guaranteed plan, the deferred last survivor plan, the individual contract, group contracts and things of that sort.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: The deferred starvation plan.


Charles Edward Johnston: When the provincial government of Alberta can make their interest rate 3J per cent, surely this federal government can make the rate at least 4 per cent, particularly in view of the fact that the interest rate used to be 4 per cent. All those reasons the government gave for reducing the rate have now been overcome or wiped out. There is therefore no reason from any point of view why the government cannot increase that interest rate and put it back to its original 4 per cent.
I do not think the government is going to lose any money by this legislation. It has been stated that the administration cost is about 1 per cent of the premiums. But if the government does not make possible some form of annuity plan which can be co-ordinated with the old age pension plan, they will have to increase the amount of the old age pension. From the government's point of view, it would seem to me more economical to make an annuity plan so worthwhile that people would put forth every effort to be thrifty, to save and provide for themselves in their old age by buying an annuity, even though it be small, thereby assisting themselves to have a better standard of living when they reach the age of 70. If the government are going to benefit by that legislation they should have no hesitancy in bringing in an annuity plan which will encourage thrift and saving, and which will encourage these people to start buying an annuity no matter how small it may be.
However I look at this problem it seems to me the government is going to benefit; that is, if they increase the interest rate which is to be paid on annuities. I am sure they must realize that as assistance to the old age pension and as encouragement to thrift, the resolution we have before us advocating an increase from $100 to $200 will not serve the purpose that was intended. They themselves must do something better than is indicated in the proposed legislation.
We are going to support the legislation. The increase from $100 to $200 will benefit some people. It will benefit only those who are comparatively well off. The purchase of an annuity paying $200 a month will cost a great deal of money. I venture to say that not many members of parliament will be able to buy an annuity paying $200 a month starting at age 65, much less anyone who is expecting to go on the old age pension. We hope the government will take this suggestion seriously into consideration. I hope the parliamentary assistant, who is sitting

in his place in the house at the moment, will make an effort to see that, before the end of this session, some other legislation is brought down which will give the promised assistance to old age pensioners.


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length at this stage. My first reason for not doing so is that I have the assurance that the discussion will be more fruitful when a copy of the bill amending the Government Annuities Act is in the hands of hon. members. In the second place-and this is particularly in reply to one of the questions put this afternoon by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough)-it is the intention of the Minister of Labour, to recommend that the bill be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations immediately after it has received its second reading. For these reasons I think that tonight I should deal only with a few of the questions which have arisen during this debate. In the first place-and this will meet the expectation of the three hon. members who have spoken on this resolution-with the approval of the house I should like to place on Hansard a table giving a few examples showing the monthly premium required to purchase a level annuity for life commencing at age 65 for males and age 60 for females, compared with the monthly premium necessary to produce annuities of the same amount but which reduce at age 70 by the amount of the old age security, namely $40 a month. This will put in concrete form the change which will be made by the amending bill to provide co-ordination of the government annuities with the old age security scheme.
Government Annuities Act
Before placing this table on Hansard I wish to mention that in the case of a male annuitant, in a contract providing for $75 pension a month at age 65, reducing at age 70 by the amount of the old age security, $40, the premium will be reduced by one-third over the premium which is payable on an ordinary life annuity contract. In the second category given by the table the amount of the annuity is figured at $100 a month, commencing at 65 and reducing to $60 at age 70. In this case the reduction in the premium will be roughly 25 per cent. In the third category, in the case of a contract providing for an annuity of $125 a month at age 65 and reducing by $40 at age 70, the reduction in the premium will be roughly 20 per cent.


Charles Edward Johnston: What would that annuity cost a year?


Paul-Émile Côté: Well, in the first category where the monthly annuity is figured at $75, the cost of the premium at age 20 would be $6.19 a month. In the case of a $100 monthly annuity, the cost would be $9.28 a month; and in the third category, the annuity of $125, the monthly cost would be $12.37, and so on. Perhaps my hon. friend would be interested in looking at this table which is a fair illustration of what was meant by the minister when he announced a new type of annuity, the term annuity contract, which would co-ordinate with the old age security plan.
The table follows:

Government Annuities Act



A FEW EXAMPLES SHOWING THE MONTHLY PREMIUM REQUIRED TO PURCHASE A LEVEL ANNUITY FOR LIFE COMMENCING AT AGE 65 MALES, 60 FEMALES, COMPARED WITH THE MONTHLY PREMIUM NECESSARY TO PRODUCE ANNUITIES OF THE SAME AMOUNT BUT WHICH REDUCE AT AGE 70 BY THE AMOUNT OF THE OLD AGE SECURITY ($40 PER MONTH.

[Stage Direction]
Monthly Premiums Starting At:
Age 20	Age 30	Age 40	Ord. Life	Guar. 10	Ord. Life	Guar. 10	Ord. Life	Guar. 10MALES Annuity- $75 per month commencing age 65 and payable	for life	$ 9.27	$10.17	$14.22	$15.57	$23.58	$25.83$75 per month commencing age 65, reducing	to $35 per month at age 70	6.19	6.73	9.49	10.29	15.74	17.07Difference in $	3.08	3.44	4.73	5.28	7.84	8.76Difference as % of larger premium	33-2%	33-9%	33-2%	33-9%	33-2%	33-9%$100 per month commencing age 65 and payable	for life	$12.36	$13.56	$18.96	$20.76	$31.44	$34.44$100 per month commencing age 65, reducing to	$60 per month at age 70	9.28	10.12	14.23	15.48	23.60	25.68Difference in $	3.08	3.44	4.73	5.28	7.84	8.76Difference as % of larger premium	24-9%	25-4%	24-9%	25-4%	24-9%	25-4%$125 per month commencing age 65 and payable	for life	$15.45	$16.95	$23.70	$25.95	$39.30	$43.05$125 per month commencing age 65, reducing	to $85 per month at age 70	12.37	13.51	18.97	20.67	31.46	34.29Difference in $	3.08	3.44	4.73	5.28	7.84	8.76Difference as % of larger premium	19-9%	20-3%	19-9%	20-3%	19-9%	20-3%FEMALES Annuity- $75 per month commencing age 60 and payable	for life	$15.21	$15.66	$24.12	$24.84	$42.66	$44.01$75 per month commencing age 60, reducing to	$35 per month at age 70	11.37	11.82	18.03	18.75	31.88	33.23Difference in $	3.84	3.84	6.09	6.09	10.78	10.78Difference as % of larger premium	25-3%	24-5%	25-3%	24-5%	25-3%	24-5%$100 per month commencing age 60 and payable	for life	$20.28	$20.88	$32.16	$33.12	$56.88	$58.68$100 per month commencing age 60, reducing	to $60 per month at age 70	16.44	17.04	26.07	27.03	46.10	47.90Difference in $	3.84	3.84	6.09	6.09	10.78	10.78Difference as % of larger premium	19-0%	18-4%	19-0%	18-4%	19-0%	18-4%$125 per month commencing age 60 and payable	for life	$25.35	$26.10	$40.20	$41.40	$71.10	$73.35$125 per month commencing age 60, reducing	to $85 per month at age 70	21.51	22.26	34.11	35.31	60.32	62.57Difference in $	3.84	3.84	6.09	6.09	10.78	10.78Difference as % of larger premium	15-2%	14-7%	15-2%	14-7%	15-2%	14-7%
[Stage Direction]
I have not very much to add, Mr. Speaker, except that on. this specific point I have just discussed I may say that in the first phase of this combined annuity contract, the highest amount of annuity provided by this contract may exceed the maximum of $2,400 inasmuch as the average payment calculated on an actuarial basis does not exceed $2,400 per annum. That means that between 65 and 70 the annuitant can get more than $200 a month because when the reduction of his annuity starts at age 70 on an actuarial basis the average monthly or yearly annuity that will be paid to him will not exceed the new maximum set by the legislation.
Before I take my seat I must correct a false impression that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) seemed to be under this afternoon when she intimated that under the new amendments in the group contracts an employee will be authorized, should he change employer, to have his credit transferred to another group plan. This is a misconception. Nothing of the sort is intended by the amendment. What is meant is that should the employer change somehow or other through sale of the interest of a firm in any plan, then the contract will be amended under this new amendment to transfer to the acquiring company or individuals the participation which he may have as employer in this particular employer-employee plan.
That is all I wish to say tonight, Mr. Speaker. I shall not discuss the interest rates. Much emphasis has been placed on the change in rates which took place in April, 1948, by the reduction from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. I might remind my hon. friends that there is no statutory provision for such a change. The interest rate is determined under a provision of the act which empowers the governor in council to vary the rate of interest upward or downward. Therefore I will not discuss it. I just wish to remind my hon. friends that if they will review the circumstances in 1908 when the government annuities were introduced they will realize that this was not intended to be what in late years we have been accustomed to call a subsidized social welfare scheme. It is true that inasmuch as the administrative charges were being borne by the government this was an element of subsidy. Inasmuch as there has been a favourable differential between the rate of interest of annuity contracts and the yield of long-term government bonds, there has been an element of subsidy. But in 1908 -and it is on what took place at that time that the real spirit and purpose of the legislation must be determined-the rate of interest yielded by government bonds was 3-9 per
Government Annuities Act cent when the interest was determined at 4 per cent for the purpose of government annuities. Therefore at that time a differential of one-tenth of one per cent in the rate of interest was surely not intended to be and remain an important feature of subsidization by the government.
Charles Edward Johnston: Are you going to wait until it reaches 9 per cent before you make any changes?


Paul-Émile Côté: As time went by there were changes. During the first quarter century of the existence of our legislation the yield on government bonds- varied from 3-9 per cent to 6 per cent. So this 4 per cent has played both ways.
I believe there has been ample discussion of the question of interest rates at this stage. I am sure the Minister of Labour was wise in his intention to recommend reference of the bill to the committee on industrial relations, before which, if the committee wishes, officials of the department including actuaries will appear. These officials will be only too pleased to give their views on any point that may have to do with their sphere of responsibility. I should think all hon. members should be satisfied that these amendments are intended to improve the act, to give greater flexibility and to provide better protection and privileges for the annuitants, as well as for any others interested in these contracts.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Mr. Mclvor:: Will this amendment improve the position of agents who sell annuities on commission? The passing of the old age pensions legislation, which increases the pension, has discouraged these agents, and they cannot afford to sell their annuities at the same rate. Will this improve their position in any way? We want to hold them in their jobs, if possible.


Paul-Émile Côté: The rate of commission received by salesmen is determined by regulation. There is nothing in the amendments to be brought forward which will change the rate at which the salesmen are remunerated. It may be that new features brought into the act will increase the sale of annuities to an extent greater than may have been forecast, and in that sense salesmen would find the job easier and their remuneration would increase accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words by way of comment concerning some of the observations of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of

Government Annuities Act Labour. I would like, too, to put a few questions to him about the legislation based on the resolution.
I have noted with interest the study both the parliamentary assistant and the minister have made of the debate which took place when this legislation was first introduced forty-three years ago. Incidentally what developed at that time came from the study given to the subject by a committee. I believe that even in those far-off days there was in the minds of those who were putting the legislation through some realization of the part society could play in helping people provide for their own old age. I would like the parliamentary assistant to realize that, although that was a long time ago in terms of Canadian social history, even at that time many other countries of the world had embarked upon programs of social security, particularly a number of countries in western Europe.
As I recall the debate which took place in June of 1908, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other members of the government of that day spoke and pointed out that there were two elements of subsidy in the matter; the parliamentary assistant has referred to them in passing. On the one hand the plan was being subsidized in part because the administration costs were to be paid by the government. There was also an element of subsidy because of the higher interest rate, even though it was only a fraction of a per cent, being accorded to annuities as compared with the interest rate on ordinary government bonds.
So I do not think anything can be made out of any different approach to the problem, as far as annuities are concerned, even back there forty-three years ago. They did not go as far as we do today in terms of the principle of using subsidies. Government budgets in those days amounted to only a small fraction of one of our estimates in these modern days. Nevertheless it was part of the framework of the legislation that it was a good thing for society to play its part in helping people to provide at least to some extent for their retirement. If society is going to do that, then it is far better to put it on as broad a basis as possible, the sort of basis which would make it possible for the largest number of people to take advantage of it.
The aim is not just to provide extra money for the wealthy; that is hardly defensible on any social basis. The aim is rather to help the ordinary rank and file of the Canadian people to do this sort of thing. To the extent we help people to provide for their own retirement, just to that extent we lessen the
[Mr. Knowles.l

necessity for other forms of public assistance of one kind or another. I suggest that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and members of his cabinet in 1908 thought this was good business, and I do not think we should be offering to the Canadian people today anything less advantageous than the Laurier government offered forty-three years ago.
The parliamentary assistant spoke about the slight difference there was between the 3-9 per cent on government bonds and the 4 per cent, which was the rate fixed by order in council in 1908. He said across the years there had been fluctuations in the rate of interest paid on government bonds, and said that at one point it rose as high as 6 per cent. I would remind him that the interest paid on government annuities was not increased in keeping with the increase to 6 per cent on bonds, but that it stayed at 4 per cent across those years. Similarly, I do not think the downward change should have been made at all.
The parliamentary assistant is quite right in pointing out that the change, although made by order in council, was correctly made in that way, because the original legislation did not fix by statute the rate of interest but rather left it to the governor in council. I think there is something to be said for the idea that the government has responsibility to the people in these matters. Here is a rate that was fixed, and upon which the people could depend for forty years. Many people had bought their annuities on the basis of that rate. Then, as I said earlier, suddenly a change is made; a line is drawn right down the middle of a group of employees, between those who pay a lower and those who pay a higher rate for their annuities. I have noted with interest that in recent years the Prime Minister has taken a certain position with respect to various matters which, constitutionally, can be dealt with by order in council. His position has been that they should be brought before parliament, even though this is not legally required. He took that view only a couple of days ago in connection with a matter of extradition which was brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I think the Prime Minister is to be complimented upon his attitude. I have known him to take it a number of times in the last few years, in connection with matters which, within the constitutional right of the government, would fall within that class which could be dealt with by order in council. However, the Prime Minister has said he has felt such matters should be brought before parliament.
I think the same applies to a matter like this. There was a rate for forty years. It

was changed suddenly by order in council in April, 1948. I do not -think that was playing fair with parliament or the Canadian people, and I urge strongly that reconsideration be given to restoring that rate. I realize the parliamentary assistant is not in a position to discuss this phase of the matter, that it is a matter of government policy which would have to be taken up with the minister, or when the officials come before the committee on industrial relations. As I stated in my earlier remarks, this is the most important feature with respect to annuities, namely the rate at which they can be bought.
Now that we are in committee there are a few questions I should like to put to the parliamentary assistant. I shall put one or two, sit down and give him a chance to answer. It has been indicated that there will be some differences in the new plans as compared with the plans now in effect. One of the most notable differences is that a person will be able to have his annuity fixed so that it pays a higher amount until he is 70 years, and comes down to a lower level from then on. May I ask if that provision will apply only to annuities taken out after these amendments have been passed, or will those who now possess annuity contracts have the right to make such alterations in their contracts?


Paul-Émile Côté: These amendments will provide for amendment to existing contracts at the discretion of the minister. I can see no objection to the proposition put forth by my hon. friend, but I would not like my answer to be taken as being definite and final. I would assume that the power given by the amendments to amend contracts or even to substitute new contracts for those already existing would provide for the proposition mentioned by my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If for a contract in existence prior to April 19, 1948, there is substituted a new contract, will the new contract be on the basis of the old or new rates?


Paul-Émile Côté: I would not care to give a definite answer. I would ask my hon. friend to let his question stand until we reach the committee stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will do that, as I appreciate the position the parliamentary assistant is in. Are the mortality tables used in computing the annuity rates which the parliamentary assistant placed on Hansard a little while ago the same tables provided for by the order in council passed on April 19, 1948?


Paul-Émile Côté: The mortality tables are those which were set up in 1948.


Percy Ellis Wright: Where a person has a contract for $100 per month which he wishes to
Government Annuities Act increase to $200 a month, will he be allowed to increase it at the same rates as applied to the old contract?


Paul-Émile Côté: No. Any addition to the coverage provided by any such contract would be at the rates prevailing at the time of the addition.


Mr. Fair:: Is the parliamentary assistant sure of that? I understood that if a person bought an annuity at the old rate of 4 per cent and wished to increase it at a later date, he could do so at the old rate. Surely he would not have to come under the 3 per cent rate, or whatever it may be. I understood definitely from the officials that the rate would continue at 4 per cent even if a person wished to increase the amount of the annuity.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think this point should be cleared up right now. I visited the annuities office when we were discussing this matter and it was pointed out to me most clearly that if a contract was taken out at the 4 per cent rate, it could be increased at any time in the future and still bear that rate. If the parliamentary assistant is claiming that is not the case, we should know about it now because that would be a violation of a contract already entered into.


Paul-Émile Côté: My hon. friend is right with regard to any increase up to the maximum amount permissible under a contract already in existence, but I was referring to the new maximum of $2,400 which will be provided by the amendments. If my hon. friend is going to go into technicalities I suggest that he wait until we are in committee when the officials of the department will be able to give more precise answers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I said before, I appreciate the position in which the parliamentary assistant finds himself with respect to some of these questions, and I shall not press them at this time. However, it might be useful if some of the questions were placed on the record so the officials would know what answers to dig up. I would be interested in learning at some stage whether the cash surrender privilege will apply only to contracts issued after these amendments go into effect, or will that apply to contracts already in effect.
Referring to the special contracts that can be taken out for a limited period up to twenty years, it would be interesting to know if there is any starting or ending date or whether they are just for old age periods? I was wondering whether they could be taken out to meet the educational requirements of one's children.

Government Annuities Act
The other night the minister said that it would be possible to take out an annuity payable to one person during his lifetime, and then have it transferred to some other person for his lifetime. Is there any restriction upon the class of persons that might be included! in such a contract? I had some other questions but they relate more to the interest rates and to what consideration might have been given that matter. In view of the suggestion made by the parliamentary assistant I shall leave these until later.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Would the parliamentary assistant repeat what he said about the reduction in the premium which would be occasioned by the old age pension coming into effect at age 70? I understood him to say that it would involve a one-third reduction in the premium.


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: I placed on Hansard a table which showed in concrete form the effect on the premiums of this co-ordination of the old age security scheme, which is to come into effect on January 1, and an annuity contract. It gives the premiums and the proportion of reduction in premiums in three categories of annuities, $75, $100 and $125 per month.


Charles Edward Johnston: Taken out at what age?


Paul-Émile Côté: Each i's reduced by $40 at age 70. In these categories the premium of course is much lower than if the annuitant took an ordinary life annuity of $75, $100 or $125.


Charles Edward Johnston: But they all start at the age of 20 years.


Paul-Émile Côté: Yes, those are the figures I am giving.


Charles Edward Johnston: They will not come into effect for years.


Paul-Émile Côté: I have others starting at ages 30 and 40.


Charles Edward Johnston: They will not become effective for another fifty years. What about those people who are 40 or 45 years old? It will cost them a lot more than you indicated a moment ago.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Did the parliamentary assistant say that they were using mortality tables of 1948?


Paul-Émile Côté: I referred to the mortality tables which were put into effect in April 1948 when the changes in the cost of annuity contracts were made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to the matter that has just been under discussion, is it clear that these reduced rates, one-third less or one-quarter less, will be level rates for

the whole time a person is buying an annuity? In other words, when you take out an annuity under this new plan you stipulate that you want the kind that will be reduced by a certain amount at age 70 and you pay a level premium across the years accordingly.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Yes, it will be so. The stipulation in the contract will provide that the higher amount of the annuity will mature at 65 and will be payable up to 70 from which time the annuity payable will be reduced by $40. I do not know exactly how that will be put in writing in the contract but that will be the meaning of any phraseology that will be adopted.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Gregg) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 23, to amend the Government Annuities Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bradley that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act in relation to advances authorized to be made to the king's printer for the purchase of materials to execute orders and requisitions and payment of wages, and to provide that the total amount of such outstanding advances shall at no time exceed the sum of four million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Stanley Howard Knowles: The other night, when this resolution was under discussion at the stage with Mr. Speaker in the chair, a few remarks were exchanged between the hon. member for Temiscouata and myself. I am sorry he is not present. Perhaps my saying that will result in word getting to him and he will appear. Then we can have some more exchanges and that will make it more interesting. At any rate, since that debate the hon. member for Temiscouata has received a letter signed by the president and the secretary of the Ottawa typographical union. The letter includes a paragraph in which the officers of the union indicated to the hon. member for Temiscouata that they were sending me a copy of the letter. To continue the story of this courtesy, I may say that when the hon. member for Temiscouata



IS. 1951

[Stage Direction]
replied to this letter he furnished the officers of the union with a copy of his letter so they could give it to me. Therefore everybody knows what is going on and it is all quite clear.
An hon. Member:: Confusion compounded.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Jean-François Pouliot: I never said a word about the forty-hour week. I challenge the hon. gentleman to quote anything about it, and moreover I shall ask him to proceed, although he will dislike it, as a lawyer would in submitting his case. In the first place, let him read what I said in the house. Let him read the letters and other papers that were sent to me by Mr. LeBlanc of the printers' union. Let him read a copy of my answer, and I shall send a copy of my answer to Mr. LeBlanc for the benefit of the hon. gentleman; let him read the whole story and then we shall argue it afterwards. I am in a position to argue with him, because I have union men in my county. I tell them very often that I have to fight the union to protect them. They come and say "Hurrah, boy, that is true".


Stanley Howard Knowles: I predicted earlier that this discussion would be a lot more interesting if the hon. member were here-


Jean-François Pouliot: I thought the hon. gentleman would be satisfied with my answer. I never thought he would waste the time of the house with that, but if he is willing to engage in a discussion with me I am ready to answer him point by point.


Mr. Rinfret:: Perhaps I should interrupt at this point. All this discussion might be very interesting, but Hansard has been corrected as to certain points, and I submit this discussion is out of order. We are discussing in committee a resolution asking for an increase in the revolving fund of the printing bureau from $2 million to $4 million. I do not see what the wages paid at the printing bureau have to do with this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point of order, I might say there is a good deal of merit in what the Postmaster General says. The fact of the matter is that whether we were in order or out of order, we got into this discussion the other night. As I said earlier, the members of this union were anxious to have corrected the three points that were made in the member's speech in the house. I was setting out to do that. I have dealt with two of them, and in a moment I shall be finished with the third one. I shall go so far as to admit that perhaps the Postmaster General is correct, and if we had not got started on it the whole thing would be out of order. Since we have gone this far, and since what amounts to a point of privilege has come up, I feel it is only fair to these men, who feel that they were misrepresented by a speech in the house, that their answer should be made.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is why I did not interrupt before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say to the hon. member for Temiscouata, as other members who were here at the time will bear me out, that I indicated to the committee that the union, in writing to the hon. member, included in their letter a paragraph to the effect that they were sending me a copy of the letter. He returned the courtesy by giving them a copy of his letter so they could give it to me. Both of us, therefore, have all the documents.


Jean-François Pouliot: They would have sent it to the hon. gentleman just the same, because they must share his policy. It was to save them the trouble that I sent the additional copy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was not at all surprised that the hon. gentleman did so because, although many of us quarrel with him, he is a man of great courtesy. The hon. member asked me to draw to his attention what it was he said

in the previous debate that was offensive to the union. It is found at page 561 of Hansard and reads as follows:
My hon. friend knows it. and I shall tell him something more. One of his friends probably ran for office in the union, but he was not successful. He was defeated by 3 to 1. He knows it, and I need not be any more specific about it. He ran on the very same issue, and he was defeated by the men he was supposed to fight for, who were not interested in his policy.
Whatever the hon. member for Temiscouata meant by that statement, the members of the union took it to mean, and regard those words in print as implying, that the members of that union do not support the policy of the international typographical union which calls for the forty-hour week. Their answer to that is in a brief part of their letter to the hon. member for Temiscouata. If I may read it, then as far as I am concerned that can be the end of it. This is from the letter signed by Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Fry to the hon. member for Temiscouata, dated November 5. As I say, the letter states that a copy was sent to me. This is their answer to the point I have just been discussing:
The same Hansard also attributes to you the statement that a former union official was defeated in the last election because the members of the union did not support his policies in regard to the printing bureau. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In so far as the policies of the union are concerned in relation to the printing bureau, including the institution of the five-day week, the withdrawal of order in council P.C. 6190, etc., there has been no change whatever, neither on the part of the union officers nor the employees in the bureau.
The policy of the union regarding the five-day week, P.C. 6190 and working conditions in general in the bureau have been stated repeatedly by this union and is in line with the policy of the allied printing trades throughout Ontario, a fact attested to by the two resolutions passed by the Ontario federation of printing trades, copies of which we enclose. The federation, and this union, have repeatedly called attention to the fact that the government's labour policy, as applied in the printing bureau, is undermining the working conditions of the entire industry throughout Ontario and western Quebec.
I leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. What these men in the union wanted made clear was that, despite a change of officers in the union-there was a change in presidency; the secretary is still the same person-their adherence to the forty-hour week policy of the I.T.U. is beyond question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, this is most unfair. I want the hon. gentleman to read my answer to that.


Charles Edward Johnston: Nobody wants to hear it.


Jean-François Pouliot: When the hon. member started to read part, he must continue. Why should he stop there, in telling the story of the union,
Public Printing and Stationery Act and not mention my answer? I cannot understand such' an action by an hon. gentleman who is as fair as he is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, have I your permission to respond to the hon. member's request?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say that I am willing to do whatever the hon. member wants in this respect. I will make one suggestion, though-


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not my wish; it is for hon. members to say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to make one suggestion, to save time. I said earlier that there were three points. I have already discussed two of the points or rather I had already discussed two of the points before the hon. member came in, and he arrived as I was discussing the third. My suggestion is that since I have read from their letter only the part dealing with the question of the adherence of the union to the five-day week policy, that I should now read-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that he read only the answer, because it seems to me that this whole debate is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is just what I was going to say, that I thought it would be better if I limited my quotation from the letter from the hon. member for Temiscouata to the part in which he answered this point.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let us hear my answer from the lips of the hon. gentleman in the first place.


James Sinclair: Read it well.


An hon. Member:: Put some feeling in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the paragraph which deals-


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, no. Read it from A to Z, from alpha to omega.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not feel that I should read the whole of the hon. member's reply-


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -unless I am given time to read the whole of the letter to which the hon. member's letter was in reply. Let us make it fair both ways. The only part I read to the committee, from the letter written to the hon. member by the union was the three paragraphs dealing with this question of the five-day week policy.


An hon. Member:: Read the whole thing.


An hon. Member:: Table the whole letter.

Public Printing and Stationery Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: How about saving time and putting the two letters on the record?


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here is the letter from the union to the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Some hon. Members:: Table it.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. Is it agreed?


James Sinclair: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And here is the reply of the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am prepared to leave it at that. The first letter is as follows:
Ottawa Typographical Union No. 102
Ottawa, Nov. 5, 1951
Mr. J. F. Pouliot, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-
Hansard for October 30, 1951, on page 561, contains a statement by you, speaking to Mr. Stanley Knowles, M.P., to the effect that the wages in the printing bureau are established by statute, being subsection 3 of section 16 of the Public Printing and Stationery Act (R.S., Chap. 162.).
The act referred to establishes a maximum above which the wages in the bureau cannot be raised. It sets no minimum. Likewise, it sets no time period during which the wage rates in the bureau must be adjusted with the wage rates in Montreal and Toronto when new wage rates are negotiated in those cities. As a rule, the bureau is at least six months behind Montreal and Toronto in establishing new wage rates, and they are never made retroactive for any period of time approaching six months.
The act establishes a ceiling over the wages paid in the bureau, and nothing else. It does not set the rate of wages. In support of this statement, we enclose a copy of a letter from R. B. Bryce, assistant deputy minister of finance and secretary to the treasury board, clearly stating this fact. Such a clear statement from such a source should be acceptable, and we hope you will find it so and, perhaps, correct the statement attributed to you in Hansard.
You will note that Mr. Bryce states:	"The rates
currently authorized for printing trades employees of the bureau have been based on rates prevailing in Ottawa." Yet Hansard quotes you as saying: "Just before the minister answers the hon. member" (Mr. Knowles) "may I say that he must know that the rate of wages is fixed by statute" and "my hon. friend" (Mr. Knowles) "knows, and he knows that the wages paid at the printing bureau are exactly the same $1.65 per hour."
We respectfully submit that the wages in the bureau are not fixed by statute. As stated above, they are only limited by a very ambiguous statute.
We also respectfully call your attention to the fact that the phrase "the same $1.65 per hour" betrays a surprising lack of information. The rate in

Toronto has been more than $1.65 for a long time. At the present time, the $1.65 rate of wages in Montreal has expired and negotiations are in progress, the employees asking for more than $2 per hour. In Toronto, the employees have refused to accept an offer of $1.87 per hour and the matter is in the hands of a board of conciliation.
The same Hansard also attributes to you the statement that a former union official was defeated in the last election because the members of the union did not support his policies in regard to the printing bureau. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In so far as the policies of the union are concerned in relation to the printing bureau, including the institution of the five-day week, the withdrawal of order in council P.C. 6190, etc., there has been no change whatever, neither on the part of the union officers nor the employees in the bureau.
The policy of the union regarding the five-day week, P.C. 6190, and working conditions in general in the bureau have been stated repeatedly by this union and is in line with the policy of allied printing trades throughout Ontario, a fact attested to by the two resolutions passed by the Ontario federation of printing trades, copies of which we enclose. The federation, and this union, have repeatedly called attention to the fact that the government's labour policy, as applied in the printing bureau, is undermining the working conditions of the entire industry throughout Ontario and western Quebec.
Inasmuch as this union's policy was made the subject of debate in the house, we are taking the liberty of forwarding copies of this letter and the enclosed exhibits to the other hon. members involved, Secretary of State Bradley and Mr. Stanley Knowles. We feel confident that, as a seasoned member of the house, you will concede that they should, in fairness, be informed of the union's actual stand as well as yourself.
We hope that this letter will serve the purpose of furnishing you with the true facts of the case. If it is agreeable to you, we would be glad to meet you and discuss this matter at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
J. A. LeBlanc
President Jack Fry
Secretary
The letter from the hon. member for Temiscouata is as follows:
Ottawa, November 9, 1951
Mr. J. A. LeBlanc,
4651 St. Patrick street,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 5 with reference to what I said in the house on October 30 about the prevailing rate of wages at the printing bureau.
The rate paid for similar work in the, cities of Montreal and Toronto shall be the ceiling for the rate of the printing bureau in virtue of a statutory provision the text of which I quoted in my remarks.
Mr. Knowles stated that the rates in Montreal and Toronto were higher than at the bureau; that statement was not correct, because, in the second page of your letter, you agree that the basic rate in Montreal is $1.65 and the same as it is at the printing bureau. You add that it has expired (in Montreal) and that negotiations are in progress, but I am sure that you will agree that $1.65 remains the prevailing basic rate in Montreal as long as the parties concerned have not entered into a new agreement. Therefore, as I said in the house, the

prevailing rate agreed to last spring for the printing bureau is the same as the prevailing rate in Montreal at the present time. The ceiling rate for the printing bureau and the Montreal rate were the same on October 30 ultimo, and they will remain such until new agreements are entered in due course.
To make sure about the Toronto rate, I called the treasury board who informed me that the prevailing rate in Toronto, at the time of the last revision in the printing bureau, was $1,671 or 21 cents more than the basic rate paid in Montreal. I am sure that you will agree that neither in virtue of the statute nor of P.C. 6190 is the treasury board bound to fix the maximum rate of Montreal or Toronto as the rate for the printing bureau. But, in your case, the treasury board has been very fair for the bureau. The printers may get 2J cents less than the Toronto rate, but they get as much as Montreal and 10 or 15 cents more than those engaged in other printing firms located in your own city of Ottawa.
I have read with care the letter from Mr. R. B. Bryce, assistant deputy minister of finance and secretary of the treasury board. I have noted that this letter was dated July 11, 1950, when the rates of the printing bureau were those prevailing in Ottawa. As it was sent to you before the last revision of wage rates which came in force in the printing bureau last spring, I am quite surprised that you sent it to me, because the Ottawa rates are now less than at the printing bureau.
You cannot expect any opinion about the labour week nor the withdrawal of P.C. 6190, because it is a matter of government policy.
Yours very truly,
Jean-Frangois Pouliot


Jean-François Pouliot: On a question of privilege, may I say that I have the greatest respect for my colleagues in the house and that when I have a complaint to make about one of them, I notify him in advance in order that he may be here to reply. 1 had dinner in town, and afterwards I came here with a friend of mine who is in the gallery; then I went up to my office to read my correspondence. A colleague came to my office and said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was attacking me in the chamber. I could not believe it; but I came down to the chamber and found that it was true. What was true? That he was attacking me. I do not complain about that. Opinions are free. But it would have been shorter if I had been here at the start.
What did I say when the hon. member started to complain about the wages of the printing staff at the printing bureau? I am not a member of any union and I do not boast that I am; but I know as much about printing as does the hon. member; and I have as much admiration as he has for the personnel of the printing bureau who are doing an excellent job.
There is a great difference between the personnel of the bureau and the union. I have never been terrorized by any union leaders for the very good reason that I have done their job most of the time when they were parading around with big gold chains and
Public Printing and Stationery Act smoking big cigars. That is my experience in my county where I have eight hundred railway men. During the railway strike I was called upon by the strikers to address them. The first thing I told them-and I do not know whether other members of parliament would use the same language-was this. I said: Gentlemen, I thank you for having honoured me with the invitation to address you. With regard to the strike, I will tell you that I have always fought for you and nearly always against the unions. They said: "You are right, Jean-Frangois." That does not mean that I gave the cold shoulder to the men in overalls because, during the war, I was one of the few who defended them and wanted the country to respect them because their work was essential to the war effort. They respected me also. The hon. gentleman would not have uttered the second sentence if he had delivered that speech in my county.
What is the story? It is obvious. I said one thing that I will not retract. The union men and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre know that it is true. There was an agitator, by the name of Ford, who came out and cursed everybody. What happened to him was this. A week or two after he had been using such bad language in order to arouse the members of the union he was defeated by three to one. My hon. friend knows it. His name is Ford. He knows it. And he had to go. He was defeated!, poof.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That has nothing to do with the issue.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the truth that I have
said and I must dot my i's and cross my t's to make my hon. friend understand, although he is clever at everything else.
Now, sir, what is the second point? I said that the printers were receiving the maximum salary. Perhaps there was a shade of difference in the terms that I used. What they receive cannot be any more than the ceiling, and the ceiling is the maximum rates of pay paid to printers in Montreal and Toronto. That is the ceiling. And in order to be fair with the committee at the time, and in order that there should be no more discussion about it, I quoted the text of the provision of the statute establishing the rates of salaries at the printing bureau. My hon. friend said, and this is in the correspondence-my hon. friend who is always right when he is alone to expound his views-that the rate at Montreal and Toronto is higher than that of Ottawa. That was partly true and partly false, because I inquired from the treasury board. I wanted to tell the truth; I always do. Sometimes there may be a slight difference in the expression of views, but I do not want to


Stanley Howard Knowles: But overtime starts at forty hours.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell the whole truth.


Jean-François Pouliot: Don't get excited; keep quiet. I am going on. And then, sir, in April last, or in the spring, $1.65 was the maximum rate of the printers in Montreal. It is still the same thing. The unions have been asking for more, but until they have entered into a new agreement it is the basic rate of the spring that still counts. The $1.65 is the maximum at Montreal, and therefore I am right about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, he can say, "no", but it
is true and I know that I am right. Well, now-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the pay for fortyfour hours?


Jean-François Pouliot: Will you please stop and give me a chance as you had when I was not here?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell me the pay for fortyfour hours.


Jean-François Pouliot: When I was not here you said everything. I am here and I want to finish before ten o'clock. Another thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the members of the union were deceitful in sending a letter from Mr. Bryce of the treasury board, dated 1950, before the last agreement was reached, in which he said that the rates of the printing bureau were those of Ottawa. It was true at the time, but it is not true any longer because the printers who live in Ottawa and who work at the printing bureau receive ten to fifteen cents more than the other printers who live in Ottawa, and my hon. friend will not deny it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said that tonight before you came in.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was a good thing to correct what you said the other day. Now, sir, here we are with the complete story. It is true that these gentlemen receive 2i cents less than Toronto, but they receive as much as the maximum of Montreal and they receive ten


or fifteen cents more than their neighbours who live in Ottawa who do not work at the printing bureau. Is it satisfactory or not to create an agitation about that? I hate agitations. I am for peace, order and good government.
There is something, the last point, that was not touched on, namely the labour week. I did not say a word about it, but in Toronto they work less than they work in Ottawa. They have the forty-hour week. If we compare the salary of the printers in Toronto and the salary of the printers in Ottawa- not in Ottawa alone-at the printing bureau, we find that those at the printing bureau earn more money each week than the printers of Toronto. That is something to consider. Besides that, sir-and this will be my final word-I am opposed to the forty-hour week. If we have trouble in this country it is precisely because people have become lazy and are afraid to work. Why should we have a forty-hour week? We work here like slaves, six or seven days a week from nine o'clock in the morning until ten or eleven o'clock at night every night. Should we encourage laziness throughout this country? What has happened is that people are no longer interested in their work and a good man has no ambition. If he works harder, if he does better work, he does not get any more. They are there and they try to do the least possible for the biggest possible amount of money, and I think it is wrong. That is one of the curses of the times. People should learn the story and follow the example of their forefathers, and they should remember the natural law that has been given by God to man that one's living shall be earned by the sweat of one's brow. That is a good lesson. I am not a slave driver. I want everyone to have a chance. I am for paid holidays; but when it comes to the work that has to be done during the week I consider that a forty-four hour week is not a bad thing. It is a good thing for the work that has to be done. What is the result of shorter hours at the printing bureau? It is that the printing work of the government has to be sent outside. Why? Because the hours are too short. And when we see the big stores, the big establishments, in this country from coast to coast that are employing day and night shifts why is it that the same thing is not done here and why is it that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is so well gifted, gives a hand to those who are at the heads of the unions just to create agitation and discontent? I want the men to be happy; I want them to be well paid; I want them to be proud of their work, but I

Public Printing and Stationery Act
want them to accomplish something and to realize that they will do something when they follow the voice of their conscience instead of that of the troublemakers who are very often heads of the unions.


Alphonse Fournier: We have had this resolution up -twice, and I appeal to hon. members. I aim certain that 90 per cent of the discussion during this debate has been out of order. Everybody admitted it. We did not interfere. I thought it was just one of those blasts that come up, but if nobody wants to discuss the resolution and its terms perhaps we can pass it and have the bill-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want-


Alphonse Fournier: You are not one of
them. I will have to admit that the hon. gentleman was not in on that. Everybody admitted that the discussion that took place during the last hour was out of order. When the bill comes up hon. members will know more about it than they know at the resolution stage, and I think we could have a more orderly discussion on second reading and in committee. I do not know; that is a suggestion. I do not want to blame anybody for what took place because when we let these things develop, they are very hard to stop. But perhaps this would be the right time to do so, at ten o'clock, if it did not displease the hon. member for Greenwood.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As the leader of the house knows, I am the most reasonable fellow in the world.


Alphonse Fournier: I know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So are we all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am in
favour of getting back to the discussion of the Public Printing and Stationery Act, and I think that is a reasonable suggestion. But I do wish to point out that on October 30, when this was last discussed, the leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Peace River all said that we had not sufficient information before us upon which to go forward. It was just like a quartette.
Now, tonight I observe with interest that the Secretary of State is not even here. He does not even honour us with his presence.


Alphonse Fournier: The Acting Secretary of State is here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Very well; then perhaps we can get some information, although it is now after ten o'clock. Now, in the face of that it would seem that it would be well for us, with this request facing us, to let it go through after the delightful discussion
we have had. I have enjoyed every minute of it. Nevertheless I think that, like the flowers that bloom in the spring, it had nothing much to do with the case.


Alphonse Fournier: May I add this word, that when the bill is in committee stage we will have the officials here, and I think at that stage all the information requested will be forthcoming. However, this is the resolution stage; and I do not know that hon. members should press now for the information.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister really thinks that by having the resolution pass tonight it would expedite matters, I would have no great objection, but on the clear understanding that all this information will be given. If that is the understanding I would have no desire to be stubborn about it.


Alphonse Fournier: I will give the assurance that we will have the officials here, with all the answers; at least I hope they will know all the answers. At any rate we will have the officials here, and they will be able to answer the questions.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It must be clear that this principle is not being approved. Perhaps we should pass it on division. I do not want to leave the impression that on the next occasion it will merely be a matter of getting a few answers to questions, and that we have all agreed. I think the Minister of Public Works should make his choice, as to whether we pass it on division or let it stand.


Alphonse Fournier: Pass it on division; I have no objection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would like to see the resolution go through tonight, and if I could have just half a minute perhaps we could avoid the revival of this little tete-a-tete. As far as the issues between us are concerned, I am quite satisfied with the case I made earlier, and with the case made in the two letters that are now on the record, particularly the letter from the union. I note from what the hon. member has said that he is opposed to the forty-hour week-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was because members of the union felt that to be the case that they wanted that corrected; and that is what I have done. And now, in the interest of peace, order and good government, as my genial friend has said, since he knows as much about printing as I do, I suggest that he and I go over to the printing bureau tonight; we can sit down at adjoining linotype machines and I will set his speech and he can set mine.
1086	HOUSE OF
Public Printing and Stationery Act


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Resolution reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Rinfret (for Mr. Bradley) moves that the said, resolution be now read a second time and concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Gordon Graydon: On division.
Resolution read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Rinfret (for Mr. Bradley) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will take up Bill No. 21, an act respecting the Canadian forces; Bill No. 22, to implement the agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty, regarding the status of their forces; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance concerning amendments to different financial acts; and Bill No. 19, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 16, 1951